Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Birmingham Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Christchurch Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Cornwall Electric Power Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 21st February.

Ely Cathedral Canonries Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Taunton Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Torquay Cemetery Bill,

Wessex Electricity Bill,

Wey Valley Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (BRITISH POLICY).

Mr. Duncan: asked the Prime Minister whether, without prejudice to the ultimate peace settlement, he will state now, that those parts of Poland, ethnographically Polish, from which Poles are being cruelly removed, will be as effectively repopulated by those Poles who wish to return to their homes when the war is won?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It has already been stated on behalf of His Majesty's Government that one of the objects for which we are fighting is to vindicate the right of the Polish people to independent national existence, and to right the wrongs which have been done to them. I cannot make any more explicit statement at present.

Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend see that that statement gets the utmost publicity in Germany, in view of the fact that it was reported in the Press that 100,000 families are about to be imported into Poland from Baden and Wurtemburg?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly do my best to meet my hon. Friend's wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SECRET SESSION).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a report of the recent Secret Session, vouched for by its former London correspondent, appeared in the German newspaper "Hamburger Fremdenblatt"; and will he direct there shall be placed in the Library a translated text, so that Members may judge whether such report was surmise or based on genuine information?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; and I am arranging for a translation to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Lambert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this reported version of the Secret Session is getting into the neutral Press, and, therefore, if it is not accurate will he take steps to see that any wrong impression is removed?

Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of that answer, is the Under-Secretary aware that there are in this House friends, good friends, of Herr Hitler and the Nazis, who are keeping watch?

Mr. Butler: There are in this House friends of various different people.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (MILITARY ASSISTANCE).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of sending bombers and fighters with crews to aid Finland in her fight for civilisation?

Mr. Butler: As has already been stated, measures have been taken to assist the Finnish Government with war material, including aircraft, from this country. I understand that crews are available in Finland who are competent to fly any machines obtained by the Finnish Government.

Sir A. Knox: Is every possible step being taken to send this material quickly, because it is very urgently needed and the Finns are fighting for the whole of civilisation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday in the House, the urgency of this matter is very much realised by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Are the Government finding any difficulty in obtaining information of the Finnish situation, as they did with the Spanish situation?

Mr. Butler: The Government are always well informed of every situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that skilled men have recently been discharged from a well-known aircraft factory; that this gives great concern when aircraft is being ordered abroad; and will he consider making an arrangement to transfer men to other firms or some other method than discharge?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am informed by the

management of the factory to which I understand the hon. Member refers, that such discharges as have taken place represent nothing more than the normal movement's of personnel which are usual in any large organisation.

Mr. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the best use is being made of the material available in the construction of all types of aircraft and in the progressive development of new types or machines built for research or training; and has recent consideration been given to making more use of wood or improved wood?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; unremitting attention is given to the efficient and economical utilisation of all available materials in aircraft construction. As regards the second part of the Question, it is the settled policy of the Air Ministry to require that training aircraft shall be mainly constructed of wood; and my Department is in close and constant touch with developments in the use of wood in various forms for any aeronautical purposes for which it may be suitable.

ROLLS-ROYCE FACTORY, HILLINGTON.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any change has taken place, or is contemplated, in the contract issued to Lindsay, Parkinson and Company, at the Rolls-Royce factory, Glasgow?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member on 8th November last no change has taken place or is contemplated, apart from the sub-letting of certain specialised work on foundations.

Mr. Davidson: Has this sub-contracted work in any way increased the original estimate submitted by Messrs. Lindsay, Parkinson and Company?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire into that.

BUILDING CONTRACTS (SCOTTISH FIRMS).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state the total number of Scottish building firms on the Air Ministry's list; and the number of such firms engaged on direct contracts for the Ministry?

Sir K. Wood: The number of Scottish building firms on the Air Ministry list is 100, 45 of which are engaged on direct Air Ministry contracts.

WAR SUPPLIES (NEW FACTORIES).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to ensure that the jobs will be ready for the men, he intends to make use of labour in the counties of Northumberland and Durham at present unemployed by the establishment of Air Ministry factories in that region?

Sir K. Wood: Having regard to all relevant considerations, it is not considered desirable to establish a factory for aircraft production in this area. But preference in the placing of contracts for ancillary material will continue to be given wherever possible to this district in common with other Special Areas.

Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

WOMEN'S AUXILIARY AIR FORCE.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that there are members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force who, after five months' service, are still without their uniform; that in a number of cases members of this force have been supplied only with thin service raincoats, supplemented during the last three weeks with an extra lining, and whilst a few of independent means have been forced to purchase their own uniform this is beyond the resources of the majority, as no allowance in lieu of uniform has yet been forthcoming; and will he take the necessary steps to see that uniforms are issued immediately?

Sir K. Wood: It is the case that there are deficiencies in the contract supply of certain items of clothing for members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, but the contractors are being pressed to expedite deliveries and the position is being speedily remedied. The raincoat with extra lining is, I am advised, considered to afford better all-the-year-round protection than a greatcoat which is not therefore being issued.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (STAFF).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Information why a junior female clerical officer was recently promoted to the higher clerical grade over the heads of

some 17 officers, mostly ex-service men with greater seniority; whether the post had any special features for which only the promoted female officer had the necessary qualifications; and will he give an assurance that in making future promotions to this grade, full regard will be had to the experience and qualifications of senior clerical officers eligible by seniority for such promotion?

The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): The officer to whom I think my hon. and gallant Friend refers was selected before the war for a post, recently advanced in grade, which she has filled since the war began. It requires special experience and qualifications, and this officer was considered the most suitable person for promotion to it. I have no hesitation in giving the assurance asked for in the last part of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LETTER DELIVERIES (INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increased difficulties of all those concerned with the delivery of letters, especially during black-out hours, through persons not giving a full and proper address, he will make an appeal to the public to give the number of their house and the name of the street or road; and whether he will secure the co-operation of the local authorities in the matter?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Local authorities have certain powers to require houses to be numbered and their attention is drawn by the Post Office to cases where the absence of house numbers causes inconvenience or delay in the delivery of correspondence. The Post Office has long stressed the desirability of the display on notepaper of the full and correct postal address of the person concerned, including the number of the house if it bears one. As my hon. Friend appreciates, the matter has become one of greater importance under war-time conditions, including the employment of a large number of temporary staff; and I should welcome any steps taken to facilitate the work of postmen on delivery.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the difficulties which my right hon. Friend


has detailed would it not be possible to arrange a broadcast appeal on this matter?

Major Tryon: I think it is of the greatest importance that numbers should be given, and I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipson: Does not the Postmaster-General think it desirable to make representations to the local authorities that they should proceed with the numbering of the houses in their district in view of the black-out?

Major Tryon: I do regard this as a matter of importance, and postmasters have instructions to approach local authorities. It is of the greatest inconvenience to postmen, sometimes men taken on for the first time, when people instead of having a proper number call their house "The Cedars" or some such name.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE).

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has been able to make arrangements for a telegraph service to the British Expeditionary Force?

Major Tryon: Yes, Sir. I am pleased to say that by arrangement with the War Office and the Air Ministry a special telegraph service will be available from Friday, 9th February, for private messages of an urgent nature to and from officers and men serving with His Majesty's Army and Royal Air Force in France. With the generous co-operation of Cable and Wireless, Limited, similar facilities will be provided for messages between other parts of the Empire and France, and also for messages to and from members of His Majesty's Army and Royal Air Force serving in places abroad other than France. As the details are rather long and complicated I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

Telegrams for troops abroad should be addressed in the same way as letters. The addresses will in most cases be lengthy, varying from 8 to 12 words, but as a special concession they will be transmitted free of charge. The rate of charge for the message itself will be 2½d. a word with a minimum charge of

1s. 3d. for six words in the case of telegrams between this country and the British Expeditionary Force in France, and 5d. a word with a minimum charge of 2s. 6d. in the case of telegrams to and from other parts of the Empire. The time of transmission of telegrams to members of the British Expeditionary Force will, of course, depend upon the conditions prevailing abroad; in some cases messages will be delivered the same day, while in others it may take up to 48 hours to effect delivery.

Thanks also to the initiative of Cable and Wireless, Limited, members of the Dominion and Colonial Forces while in this country will be able to send telegrams to their kinsmen in the British Empire overseas at the rate of 5d. a word with a free address. Telegrams accepted under this arrangement must be handed in personally by members of the Forces in uniform.

The services referred to above will be available to and from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Burma, Newfoundland and colonies, protectorates and mandated territories. The extension of the arrangement to and from Canada is still under discussion.

I ought to mention that the transmission of telegrams to officers and men serving in His Majesty's Ships presents special difficulties. All telegrams addressed to His Majesty's Ships, c/o G.P.O., London, are, as far as possible, forwarded to their destination by telegraph if the ship is in home waters; but it is unfortunately impracticable, for reasons of security, to provide a telegraph service to His Majesty's Ships serving abroad. Messages for such ships can normally only be forwarded abroad by post; but persons desiring to send messages of exceptional urgency or importance may submit them to the Admiralty, where their transmission will be considered in the light of their urgency or importance and the opportunities available for their transmission at the time.

Another problem arises in connection with the long and detailed addresses which are necessary in the case of inland telegrams to members of His Majesty's Forces in camps or barracks in this country. I have decided, in order to avoid the hardship of payment at the normal rate for such long addresses, that for charging purposes the address in all such cases should count only as five words. This concession will take effect from 9th of February and will be applicable for the duration of the war, to any inland telegram addressed to a member of His Majesty's Army, Navy or Air Force, including Auxiliary Forces and medical and nursing staffs, at any camp, barracks, station or aerodrome in this country. It will not, of course, apply to a telegram addressed to a billet or home address, where the ordinary form of address can be used.

SPEAKING-CLOCK SERVICE.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any information as to the use of the speaking-clock service and the prospects of extending the service to the whole country?

Major Tryon: The speaking-clock service is now available in London and 12 other large towns, and nearly half of the total number of telephone subscribers in the country have access to the service at a fee of 1d. The use of the service increased from 12,250,000 to 24,500,000 calls a year up to the outbreak of war. Since then, the demand has fallen slightly as a result of evacuation and other causes, but the figures are now again steadily increasing. A wide extension of the service was being arranged when war broke out. There may be some difficulty in carrying out these plans in full under war conditions, but I propose to continue to extend the service as plant can be made available.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (STORM DAMAGE).

Lord Apsley: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that whenever there is a heavy fall of wet snow, a gale of wind or a silver thaw, most of the telephone lines in Southern and Western England are brought down, especially those on exposed upland country or under trees in vale country; and whether, as it would be more economical, in view of the fact that there are now excellent trench-digging machines on the market, he will consider putting the majority of these wires under ground?

Major Tryon: I am sorry that during the recent snowstorms a considerable number of telephone subscribers' lines were put out of order; but I cannot accept the suggestion that most of the telephone lines in Southern and Western England are brought down whenever there is a snowstorm or gale. The recent snowstorms were exceptionally heavy in the south-western region, but even at the worst period the proportion of telephone subscribers' lines out of order in that region was less than 4 per cent. It is the policy of my Department to provide telephone service by underground wires in preference to overhead, wherever this would be reasonably economical; and over 14,500,000 miles or more than 90 per cent. of all Post Office telephone wires are already underground.

Lord Apsley: Would it be possible to utilise the services of unemployed men rather than take soldiers off their training, as has been done?

Major Tryon: I was not aware of that being done, but if my Noble Friend will

give me particulars I will go into the question. We do regard this matter as important, and in the year 1938–39 we spent over £9,000,000 on underground construction work.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (LIGHTING).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will specify the schemes which have been submitted to him for lighting the Central Lobby during black-out hours; and the cost of each of them?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hall: May I ask whether anything is to be done with regard to the Central Lobby?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should be sorry to summarise the reply, which is long, but it shows the difficulties present in the undertaking.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties in the Central Lobby—policemen have to stand in semi-darkness, people have to sit a considerable time in semi-darkness, and secretaries are not able to do their work? Whatever the cost, cannot something be done?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am aware of that, but the hon. Member will see when he reads the reply that there are considerable difficulties in the way of remedying the position.

Following is the reply:

It has not been found practicable to devise a method of providing more artificial light in the Central Hall without screening the windows. Permanent screening by paint or boarding up would involve the use of artificial light during daylight hours. The shape and size of the windows are such that the provision of efficient blinds would be impracticable. Screening of the four windows could be effected either by providing curtains to the whole length which could be drawn together at night, or by permanently blacking out the top portions and providing curtains for the lower portions. Under either arrangement, the four entrances to


the Central Hall which lead to corridors lighted by glass windows and to St. Stephen's Hall would have to be screened by curtains, but it might well become necessary to extend the lighting and therefore a corresponding amount of screening to further portions of the building.

Accordingly, I am unable to make a precise estimate of the total cost involved, but it would probably amount to several hundreds of pounds. Moreover, it should be realised that the restoration of normal artificial lighting in the Central Hall would entail risk of accidents to Members passing to the darkened corridors leading to obstructions and staircases; the screening of the windows of these corridors and increasing the artificial lighting, would merely shift the danger points and lead to still further extensions of window screening; at present the changes in intensity of lighting are graduated, and Members are able to accustom themselves to them. The A.R.P. Committee of both Houses, in view of all these considerations, decided that windows should generally remain unscreened and reliance placed upon a reduction of lighting and the use of pilot lights at floor level.

GOVERNMENT STAFFS (HUTMENTS, BATH).

Mrs. Tate: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to build hutments on the outskirts of the city of Bath?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Temporary buildings are to be erected by my Department on the outskirts of Bath in order to provide alternative office accommodation for Government staffs and to enable some of the requisitioned buildings in Bath to be released.

Mrs. Tate: Is there a real hope that the hotels in Bath will be restored to their owners for the purpose for which they were built? May I also ask whether these hutments are to be built by local labour and local firms instead of by firms from London?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I can assure my hon. Friend that local firms who are competent to undertake these jobs are being invited to tender.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: Are there not a large number of empty houses available in Bath?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DART BOMBS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information in connection with the new dart bombs that were dropped on the Grimsby trawler "Russell" on Wednesday last?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): On the evidence available it is not possible to identify or describe the dart bombs which were said to have been dropped near the Grimsby trawler "Russell."

INVALIDED PERSONNEL (COMPENSATION FOR LOST CLOTHING).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the responsibility of the Admiralty in regard to clothing, etc., towards naval officers and seamen who have lost their possessions at sea as a result of enemy action, and are invalided from the Navy on account of wounds or ill-health?

Mr. Churchill: Officers and men who have lost service effects as a result of enemy action and are then invalided from the Navy are paid compensation by the Admiralty on the basis of the value of the articles at the time of the loss.

Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter begging for greatcoats and other clothing for men such as I have referred to in my Question, because they cannot be obtained from the Admiralty, and will he take steps to remedy this grievance?

Mr. Churchill: There is no valid grievance, because if application is made to the proper quarter compensation will be paid. On the other hand, statements to the effect that compensation cannot be paid and attempts to obtain money from other quarters would also be deserving of inquiry.

MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIRS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether vessels for the merchant navy, built under the direction of his Department, will, on completion,


be managed by private firms or the Ministry of Shipping; and whether any of the vessels now building for private owners will be transferred to the Government?

Mr. Churchill: Merchant ships built by the Admiralty will be delivered to the Ministry of Shipping, who will make arrangements for their management. Vessels now building for private owners will not, so far as can at present be foreseen, be transferred to Government ownership but will be subject to requisition or other control by the Minister of Shipping.

Mr. Shinwell: So far as tonnage under the control of the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I take it that there will be no allocation to private firms, but that the ownership will be vested in the Ministry of Shipping?

Mr. Churchill: We build for the Ministry of Shipping and we transfer the ships when built to the Ministry, and they arrange what the future of these ships is to be.

Mr. Shinwell: If Questions are addressed to the right hon. Gentleman as to the disposal and ultimate use of the ships which are being built under the control of his Department, will he be able to answer, or should they be addressed to the Minister of Shipping?

Mr. Churchill: In my view the ultimate fate of these ships rest with the Ministry of Shipping.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the ships which are transferred to the Ministry of Shipping be subsequently managed in all respects by the Ministry of Shipping?

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, that is what it is for.

Mr. Ede: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has noticed that the number of men normally employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing registered as unemployed at the South Shields Employment Exchange, rose from 578 and 588 in September and October, 1939, respectively, to 721 and 703 in November and December, 1939, respectively; and what steps he is taking fully to employ the man-power available for shipbuilding and ship-repairing at South Shields?

Mr. Churchill: I am aware of the figures referred to by the hon. Member.

The position is that all available shipbuilding berths in South Shields are occupied with merchant ship building orders. The volume of ship repair work is bound to fluctuate and the policy is to spread such work over the country as far as possible. The facilities at South Shields will be fully borne in mind both for repair work and naval conversion work. All will be needed. The January unemployment figure at South Shields in this industry fell to 521.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to reopen the yards that were closed during the 20's and 30's?

Mr. Churchill: I am quite sure that every yard and every man are going to be used to the utmost capacity.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless he opens yards and restores yards formerly in use it will be impossible to replace our lost tonnage?

Mr. Magnay: Will my right hon. Friend take care to see that Sir James Lithgow has nothing to do with this?

Mr. Churchill: He has almost everything to do with it. In answer to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), I am sure the whole capacity available will have to be used.

Mr. Riley: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the scheme under which the Admiralty becomes responsible as from the 1st February, 1940, for all mercantile shipbuilding and repairs will include the transfer of all shipbuilding and repair establishments to Government control and ownership; and whether the employés in such establishments will, as from the date mentioned, become Government employés?

Mr. Churchill: The answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative. There is no intention of preventing shipbuilding on private account, and the Admiralty is responsible for issuing licences for this purpose.

SHIPPING LOSSES (PUBLICATION).

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give an assurance that he will take whatever action is appropriate to prevent the publication of the sinking of merchant ships until the shipping companies concerned


have had a reasonable time to inform the relatives of any details about the personnel?

Mr. Churchill: While I fully appreciate the advantages of my hon. Friend's proposal, it is not within the power of the Admiralty to delay publication of such information unless there is a security reason for so doing. Even so publication is often made abroad.

Miss Ward: From the humanitarian point of view, will my right hon. Friend consider making strong representations in the appropriate quarter?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. In regard to His Majesty's ships, we do not publish losses until we have informed the relatives, and I should like to see that practice applicable to the Mercantile Marine, but there is nothing like the same control there, and the possibility of publication abroad must always be borne in mind.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend, with his reputation for forceful action, use that forceful action in the appropriate quarter?

WAR SUPPLIES (NEW FACTORIES).

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how he proposes to meet the labour requirements and to enrol the requisite number of men and women for war production if no use is to be made of unemployed persons in the counties of Northumberland and Durham by the establishment of a fair proportion of Government factories?

Mr. Churchill: As was stated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 23rd January, every consideration will continue to be given to the North-Eastern Area when new Admiralty factories are to be built. Before a new Admiralty factory is established the Ministry of Labour and National Service is consulted in order to ensure both that the requisite labour will be available and that the claims of areas with a high degree of unemployment are given due weight in deciding upon the site.

Miss Ward: In view of my right hon. Friend's previous statement that every man will be necessary, may I presume that, so far as Admiralty work is concerned, vulnerability will not necessarily preclude Admiralty contracts from being given?

Mr. Churchill: Virtually even/body will be drawn in.

Miss Ward: Thank you.

LIGHTSHIPS (PROTECTION).

Mr. Price: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of enemy air attacks upon defenceless lightships round the coast, any steps are being taken to protect these vessels by the mounting of guns upon them, or by any other method?

Mr. Churchill: Lightships have never heretofore been specially protected because they have always been regarded by civilized nations as outside the scope of hostilities and immune from attack. Consequently the lighthouse service has never assisted us in reporting enemy activity. I think that should be noted. In view of several recent savage anarchic attacks by German aircraft upon lightships round our coast and the murder of some of their crews, special measures will be taken to provide protection for this service; and where possible, light floats will replace lightships in outer positions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR JAMES LITHGOW.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Sir James Lithgow has given up all his directorships in shipbuilding, steel, engineering and banking companies; and, if not, which directorships does he still retain?

Mr. Churchill: I invited Sir James Lithgow to undertake the task of securing us the maximum output of merchant shipbuilding, which is clearly a matter affecting our life and success in war. I am sure that this is the best arrangement that could be made, as in addition to his far-reaching connections with every aspect of merchant shipbuilding, he filled a place in this same Department during the late war with conspicuous success. I proposed that he should receive a salary equal to that of the Controller of the Navy, but he has wished to give his services without remuneration. He has also resigned his position upon the Board of National Shipbuilders' Security, Limited, and has obtained leave of absence, with two exceptions, from the boards of all other companies of which he is either chairman or director.
Sir James is retaining the chairmanship of William Beardmore and Company, Limited, without remuneration. It was thought desirable, in the national interest, that he should do so in view of the importance of this firm to the defence programme. Sir James is also retaining, without remuneration, a directorship of Richard Thomas, on the board of which it is desirable that he should continue to represent the steel industry. In case in his official capacity he should have to place orders with firms in which he has been interested or with which he is still connected, he has requested that the contracts concerned shall be dealt with by another member of the Board of Admiralty. I think we owe a debt to him for coming forward to shoulder this most difficult and anxious task, and we shall owe him a very much greater debt when we get the ships, as I am pretty sure we shall.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that Sir James Lithgow is not going to derive any salary from the position he occupies with regard to shipping, is not going to draw any salary from Beardmore's and is not going to draw any salary from Richard Thomas, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he will get any salary from?

Mr. Churchill: I presume that he will have to live on his savings, like quite a number of people do.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from that, can they be required to go on the means test?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COLONIES (PENAL SANCTIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that recent reports show that the imposition of penal sanctions arising from breaches of civil contracts amongst the workers of Africa are now only a negligible proportion; and whether he will consider the advisability of deciding that penal sanctions for breaches of civil contracts shall be abolished throughout the Colonial territories of Great Britain?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am satisfied that penal sanctions, where they still exist in British Colonies, should not be abolished more rapidly than was prescribed in

the International Convention adopted last summer by the International Labour Conference; but I have impressed upon the Governors concerned my strong desire that such sanctions should be reduced to the absolute minimum, and I have asked them to keep this matter constantly in mind.

Mr. Creech Jones: Does the answer mean that His Majesty's Government will ratify the Convention at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (LABOUR DISPUTE).

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement with regard to the dispute between the Trinidad Electricity Board and its employés; and why the principle of collective bargaining was ignored and a decision forced upon the employés by the action of the Government and the municipality of Port of Spain?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The hon. Member is presumably referring to certain recent negotiations between the Trinidad Electricity Board and representatives of employés of the board regarding wages and conditions of service. These negotiations are still in progress, and no action of the nature suggested in the second part of the Question has been taken either by the Government of Trinidad or by the municipality of Port of Spain.

Oral Answers to Questions — COCOS ISLANDS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the most recent date when a Government officer from Christmas Island visited the Cocos Islands; whether a report upon this visit is now available; and whether the report will be published?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The last visit was in November, 1938. The officer made a report to the Governor as usual, but it has not been customary to publish such local reports. A general report on the Colony of the Straits Settlements, of which these islands form a part, is published annually.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the arrangements for justice in these islands? Is not the sole landowner also the sole court of appeal?

Mr. MacDonald: On the whole I am satisfied with the conditions in the island.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state when the report of the Royal Commission on Conditions in the West Indies will be presented to Parliament?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the West Indies?

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the West Indies Royal Commission Report has been completed; if so, have the Government considered the same; and have they decided on any action?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The report was completed towards the end of December, and has since been receiving the Government's careful consideration. I am not able to make any further statement at present, but I would propose to keep in touch with the hon. Members and let them know when I shall be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to issue the report as a Parliamentary Paper?

Mr. MacDonald: As I indicated, I shall be prepared to make a statement at an early date and I think I had better not anticipate it.

Mr. Creech Jones: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot say, but I think at any rate the week after next.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information from the

Governor of the Gold Coast upon a return of profits by the gold companies, and the amount spent on the welfare of the workers?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The information desired by the hon. Member has not yet been received from the Governor. I am asking him to expedite his reply.

Mr. Adams: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly advise me when to put down a Question again?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CHARGES).

Mr. Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the further representations of the hon. Member for North Kensington regarding the excessive increased charges for electricity, particularly under the standing charge part of the two-part tariff, imposed by the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company; and whether he can now say that he will use his powers under the Defence Regulations to see that they are reduced?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I have asked the Electricity Commissioners to let me have, as soon as possible, a full report on the increased charges by this company. On the general question, I am advised that I have adequate powers under the Defence (General) Regulations to control the prices at which electricity may be sold during the war. On the information before me, I do not think it is necessary at present to issue any general order or direction under the Defence Regulations to modify the present statutory discretion of electricity undertakers to adjust their actual tariffs within the limits of their authorised maximum prices, so far as reasonably necessary on account of the effect of war conditions upon their undertakings. If, however, it should be shown to my satisfaction in any individual case that prices have been raised to an undue extent, even within the limits of the authorised maxima, I should not hesitate to have recourse to my powers under the Defence Regulations to ensure that an unjustified burden is not placed upon consumers.

Mr. Duncan: May I ask that, in that consideration, not too much attention will


be paid to the scale of pre-war profits by companies and to rating rebates by municipal undertakings?

Captain Wallace: I should not regard it as reasonable under war conditions that prices should be so increased as to maintain profits or to enable aid to be given to local rates at an unimpaired level.

Mr. Ede: Will the Minister use his influence with the Commissioners where they are attempting to put up prices?

Captain Wallace: I think I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring and I may say that I think the Commissioners were quite right.

Mr. F. Anderson: Does the Minister's reply refer to new consumers as well as to old consumers?

Captain Wallace: I do not see any reason to differentiate between new and old consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents on the roads during the last three months in which motor-lorries and motor-cars, respectively, were involved?

Captain Wallace: The statistics which have been kept since the outbreak of war do not enable me to give the particulars for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.

Sir M. Manningham-Buller: Does not the Minister think that these statistics would be worth collecting, in view of the number of occasions on which one sees lorries driven in an unsatisfactory way and no action is taken?

Captain Wallace: My hon. and gallant Friend will probably know that we are going to have sample investigations in certain selected areas, and I think that will give us valuable data on the subject.

PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the fact that pedestrians at present take very little notice of the traffic lights during the black-out, many of which are difficult

to see, he will consider experimenting with pedestrian light controls working in conjunction with the traffic lights but in the opposite sense, in order to show pedestrians when traffic is flowing and when it has stopped and a free passage across the road is available?

Captain Wallace: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 26th July last, I had proposed to issue a circular to highway authorities urging the provision of additional light signals for pedestrians wherever these are practicable and warranted. I much regret that owing to the diversion of members of my staff to other urgent war duties, the issue of this circular has been delayed; but the matter is now in hand and it will be issued in the near future.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that pedestrians very often cannot see the traffic light in the dark, and that accidents occur because they begin to cross just as the green is showing and the traffic begins to move? It is really a very serious matter in the dark.

Captain Wallace: As I said in the Debate last week, the pedestrians should look at the traffic and not only at the lights.

Sir W. Brass: They cannot.

Miss Rathbone: Will the inquiry which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was to undertake pursue its investigation into how far pedestrians contribute to accidents as a result of wearing excessively dark clothing?

Captain Wallace: We shall try so far as we can to discover the primary cause of every accident.

Sir W. Brass: Do I understand that pedestrians are expected, at the light control, to look at the traffic and not at the light?

Captain Wallace: The pedestrian should make perfectly certain that something is not turning to the left. If he relies entirely on the light he may be in danger of being run over.

SPEED LIMIT (BLACK-OUT).

Sir W. Brass: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the difficulty


drivers have of estimating accurately the speed at which motor vehicles are travelling in the dark without illuminating the speedometer on the dashboard, he will issue instructions as to how the new 20-mile an hour speed limit in built-up areas can be observed; and whether it is the considered opinion of the experts of his Department that dashboard lights should remain alight or should be extinguished when driving in the black-out?

Captain Wallace: The new 20-mile-an-hour speed limit during black-out hours applies only in localities where a 30-mile-an-hour limit has previously been in force. I do not think that motorists are finding any additional difficulty in observing the new speed limit, or any greater need for the use of dashboard lights.

Sir W. Brass: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give the answer for which I asked, which is whether his experts at the Ministry say that the light ought to be alight or whether it ought not to be alight? That is the Question I asked my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Wallace: If the light shows outside the car it is an offence against the regulations, but if the driver really does not know whether the car is going at 20 or 30 miles per hour I cannot think that, if he switched on the light for a moment to look at the speedometer, he would be run in.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' BROADCAST SPEECHES.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that considerable disappointment is felt among the general public that the majority of the working community have been unable to hear the broadcasts of recent speeches by Cabinet Ministers, because they have been made and broadcast only at or about the luncheon hour, so that persons absent from their homes all day have heard only an abridged précis of the speeches by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and, in view of the value which attaches to these speeches, he will consider having records of any future speeches by himself and other Cabinet Ministers broadcast during the evening of the day on which they are made?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am informed that the speeches to which my hon. Friend refers had very large audiences at the time of their delivery. It is not felt that a repetition in full of such speeches in the evening, following earlier reports on the air and in the Press, would be justified.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the undoubted importance that attaches to the speeches made by himself and other Cabinet Ministers, the public would rather hear their voices than the voice of the announcer of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Radford: Can my right hon. Friend give instructions that the broadcast of those speeches shall not be cut off so abruptly at the end, but that the applause of the audience shall be heard too?

Mr. Lunn: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman arrange for more speeches like that which we heard from the Leader of the Opposition?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Was not that a most disgraceful speech?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

MACHINE TOOLS (COSTING).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent difficulties have been again experienced with firms or an association of firms manufacturing machine tools which are urgently required; in how many cases have they refused to submit their books or costing systems for an investigation by Government officials; what steps are being taken to deal with the matter; what is the percentage of profit that the Government are prepared to allow these firms; and, in view of the urgency and difficulties, whether he will take early steps to take over or control this section of industry, or set up shadow factories, in order that the best results can be obtained at the minimum of cost?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): The Machine Tool Trades Association recognises the statutory powers now conferred on the Government to investigate costs, and no resistance on the part of individual firms is anticipated. The method of procedure for checking prices is under consideration. I am not prepared to announce a general margin of


profit which would be applicable to the whole industry. As regards the last part of the Question, the industry is already controlled. Subject to this, the problem of obtaining the necessary machine tools in the time required can best be solved by the willing co-operation of the industry.

Mr. Smith: Does that reply mean that the evidence tendered before a committee of this House by a representative of the Treasury is not accurate?

Mr. Burgin: It means that the evidence before the Select Committee was all tendered prior to the passing of the Ministry of Supply Act. In the Ministry of Supply Act, compulsory powers were taken to investigate costs. Those powers did not exist before, and because of the knowledge that those powers now exist there is not the slightest difficulty in costing the price of any maker of machine tools.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his Department is not fixing the price of machine tools; and if so, will he consider some cases which I have put before him in which the Department has decided at what price tools shall be sold?

Mr. Burgin: I did not say that. I said that I was not prepared to announce a general margin of profit applicable to large numbers of different instruments; but I am always willing to consider any specific instances that hon. Members care to bring to my notice.

CIVILIAN RESPIRATORS.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give a list of the firms who supplied the 20 items for civilian gas masks to the Government-controlled factories in which these items were assembled, and of the directors of both groups of firms?

Mr. Burgin: It would be contrary to the public interest to publish the names of the firms in question or other particulars from which they could be identified.

WASTE PAPER AND SCRAP-IRON (COLLECTION).

Sir M. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Supply what provisions exist, or are proposed, for the collection of paper and scrap-iron in the rural areas?

Mr. Burgin: Some rural district councils are collecting waste paper separately from other waste, and in many other areas collections are undertaken by, or in conjunction with, various voluntary organisations. Arrangements have been made, in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union, for the collection of iron and steel scrap from farms and estates in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. If these arrangements are successful, it is proposed to extend them to the rest of the country in the near future.

Sir M. Manningham-Buller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now large accumulations of waste paper in many villages and that there is no means of disposing of them?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am most anxious that all that waste paper should be collected. It is primarily a matter for the local authorities, but paper mills will have a difficulty in absorbing it in less than a given tonnage at a time. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me all the information he has, I shall be happy to make some special arrangements.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is there not some difficulty in regard to price?

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in the majority of London boroughs—indeed, in a great part of the country—local authorities are refusing to discharge their duty of collecting paper and metal separately; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in such cases of refusal to perform this most important work, consider taking compulsory powers?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Question on the Paper relates to rural areas, and I have not dealt with the Metropolitan position in my answer. I am aware of it and I hope these authorities will use their powers in order to ensure that this essential work should not be interfered with.

Mr. Holdsworth: Could not the collection be made by the ordinary trade channels if the prices were such as paid for collection?

Mr. Burgin: If prices are the difficulty I will look into that.

Mr. A. C. Reed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements for the collection of waste paper in the


country outside one or two big towns is absolutely farcical and that there are actually 1,000,000 tons of paper a year being thrown away which is valuable raw material; and will he make some effort to put the matter right? It is largely a matter of price.

Mr. Burgin: I shall be glad to have the maximum co-operation in a piece of organisation which is obviously very difficult and equally obviously in the national interest. I am making every possible effort to secure the result which everybody desires.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister consider the question of transport in relation to outlying areas where a lot of paper has accumulated?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

TIMBER.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the closing of the Baltic by enemy action and of the White Sea by ice during winter months, steps are being taken to seek fresh sources of timber supply in other parts of the world?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister also bear in mind the importance of increasing stocks?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made to buy timber whenever it is purchasable and to increase stocks.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I would like to know whether the Minister has made inquiries for timber from Southern Ireland, as several owners of forests in the neighbourhood of Queenstown have told me that they have pit props and conifer to sell but had not been approached about it?

Mr. Burgin: I am much obliged for the suggestion and I will have it examined.

CAMOUFLAGE NETS (CONTRACTS).

Captain Medlicott: asked the Minister of Supply what prospect there is now of his being able to arrange for camouflage nets to be made by fishermen and their families, working singly or in groups, as anticipated in the invitation issued by his Department through the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation in October last?

Mr. Burgin: Contracts for the making of camouflage nets have now been placed in many districts and the names of all who have applied to the Ministry with a view to assisting have been passed to the appropriate Employment Exchanges. The contractors have been asked to co-operate and to say whether they could utilise the services of additional outworkers if further orders were placed. In some districts the work has already been organised by contractors so as to employ fisherfolk, and further progress in this direction is being made daily.

Captain Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the specification as at present drawn is rather complicated, and would it be possible to see whether some alternative and more simplified specifications could be adopted?

Mr. Burgin: I am willing to have it examined, but the hon. and gallant Member will realise that it is necessarily difficult. There is some difficulty because my Department orders according to a specification laid down by the War Office. At present the supplies of camouflage nets coming forward are what the Service Departments require.

Mr. Beechman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction in certain villages in the West country, and will he further see that these villages are not exploited by London firms and companies offering small wages to fishermen to make nets?

Mr. Burgin: As soon as the Service Departments required camouflage nets a broadcast was made and a nation-wide announcement that these camouflage nets were required. There was a large response to my appeal and the names of all those who responded were taken. I cannot promise to go outside those who have made offers in response to the nation's appeal until they have had a fair share of the orders to be placed.

Mr. Beechman: Would my right hon. Friend answer my question with regard to exploitation?

Mr. Burgin: That is a matter which can be dealt with only when there is proof that something is wrong and it has been brought to my notice.

Mr. Beechman: If I produce details of such a case will the right hon. Gentleman give them his attention?

Mr. Burgin: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BREAD.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food (1) whether, with a view to preventing the victimisation of efficient bakers selling bread at economic prices, he will set up an independent tribunal to which the baker may appeal should his supply of flour be threatened or cut off;
(2) whether, with a view to protecting and safeguarding bread consumers, he will introduce legislation to make illegal the operations of any bread price scheme in any locality during the period of the war, since the principle of tolerance not exceeding ½d. per 4-lb. loaf below the Food Council scale is not being observed in some localities?

The Minister of Food (Mr. W. S. Morrison): An investigation into the bread price scale and its application in different parts of the United Kingdom is being conducted by my Department and will, I hope, be concluded in the near future. Until this investigation is complete, and all the facts are available, it would be premature to consider the introduction of legislation or to set up a tribunal. If, however, my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any cases of alleged victimisation, I shall be glad to inquire into them.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the coercive and dictatorial methods employed to prevent millers supplying individual bakers who may produce a cheap loaf? Is he also aware that the Food Council has been shut up, that nothing has been put forth to protect the public and that there is no protection from the Food Council? Further, are not these methods the rascally manoeuvres of the milling combines?

Mr. Morrison: I could not accept the general statement of my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that the matter is being carefully investigated and in the light of the ascertained facts we shall take appropriate action.

Mr. Graham White: In the meantime will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no partial affections or favouritism will be allowed to operate?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food why the report by the Food Council on the schemes for the regula-

tion of bread prices was not permitted to be printed by the Stationery Office; and whether, in view of instances which have occurred since the outbreak of the war and the implementing of certain systems to withhold supplies of flour from recognised baking establishments, he will state what safeguards exist to protect the consumers of bread in view of the fact that the Food Council is no longer functioning?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that while certain reports by the Food Council which were of general interest were published, it was not the practice to print all reports, but copies were always available to applicants, and were given to the Press. This applies to the reports prepared in 1935 and 1936, copies of which have been recently supplied to my hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the Question, I shall be happy to consider any facts in regard to individual cases which my hon. Friend may care to submit to me and, as he knows, I have already under examination one case on which he has been in correspondence with my Department.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to have a word with me afterwards?

Mr. George Griffiths: Would the Minister say when he is going to publish the findings of that special medical committee of his concerned with butter?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question.

Mr. Griffiths: I know it is another question, but I would like an answer to it.

ECONOMICAL USE OF FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give the country guidance as to the most economical use to be made of food; whether he advises the home-making of marmalade; and whether it is desirable to avoid, as far as possible, the use of imported tinned goods?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir. It is my intention, with the assistance of the various official and unofficial organisations concerned, to make advice continuously available to the public in regard to the use of foodstuffs. The preliminary arrangements are nearing completion and I hope shortly to make a more definite statement. The particular subjects re-


ferred to in the second and third parts of my hon. Friend's Question will be borne in mind.

Mr. Denman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last war an economy was made by restricting the use of starch for washing and is he prepared to repeat those restrictions?

CHESTERFIELD ABATTOIR.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the abattoir at Chesterfield is serving satisfactorily the area and population at present allocated to it, and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the position?

Mr. Morrison: The plan of control has not been in operation sufficiently long to enable a final conclusion to be reached as to whether the Chesterfield abattoir is adequately serving the needs of the area and population at present allocated to it. Weather conditions have added to the difficulties of the initial period. The abattoir was, however, carefully selected having regard to the needs of the area, and I have no reason to think that it will not serve them satisfactorily.

Mr. Ridley: As there have been grave local difficulties, will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter special consideration?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I will gladly consider it.

MEALS IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange to supply meat for school meals without the surrender of ration coupons?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) yesterday.

TIBSHELF, DERBYSHIRE (MEAT SHORTAGE).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of meat in Tibshelf, Derbyshire; and what steps he is taking to improve the situation?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that some shortage of home-killed meat occurred in Tibshelf last week owing to the small offerings of livestock for slaughter largely as a result of the in-

clement weather. Ample supplies of imported meat were made available to fill the gap in home-killed supplies. No complaints from the district have been received in the last few days.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that the statements contained in his answer are not in accordance with information which has been supplied to me? Is he further aware of the grave local dissatisfaction because the population is engaged in work which involves a very heavy expenditure of physical energy, and in those circumstances will he give the matter his further attention?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the information which the hon. Members has, but I have the information which has been given to me, and perhaps afterwards we can compare notes.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Was not there a great shortage of meat, both home-produced and imported, in most places last week; and will my right hon. Friend take immediate steps to remedy this, and to amend this scheme?

Mr. Morrison: That was due to the weather.

POTATOES

Mr. Denville: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the alarm felt by local wholesale potato merchants at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the result of the 5s. rise to growers, while under the existing maximum prices many distributors are already losing money in the distribution of potatoes; and whether he will investigate without delay whether the immediate main sources of supply to-day, and the present levels of prices, adequately take into consideration rail and other charges?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In reply to the first part of his Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to Questions on this subject by my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) and Moss Side (Mr. R. Duckworth). The action suggested in the second part has already been taken. The new revised price schedules which are about to be issued have been discussed with representatives of growers and of the trade interests concerned, and full consideration has been given to transport and other relevant costs.

LIVESTOCK AND MEAT CONTROL, LAUNCESTON.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Food the names of the persons employed on the livestock and meat control for the Launceston area; and the salaries they are paid?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the consent of the hon. Member, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

LAUNCESTON.

Persons employed on the Meat and Livestock Control.

1. Direct employés of Ministry of Food:
 (a) Full-time.
Mr. E. Rockey, Slaughterhouse Manager, £300 p.a.
Mr. E. Uglow, Deputy Meat Agent, £275 P.a.
(b) Part-time.
1 County Chairman of Auctioneers.
1 District Chairman of Auctioneers.
4 Certifying Officers and Deputies.
9 Livestock graders and deputies.
The county and district chairmen of auctioneers and the certifying officers receive sums from "The Livestock Auctioneers' Pool for England and Wales "into which payments are made by the Ministry of Food in respect of the provision of facilities for and the work of purchasing fat stock on behalf of the Ministry.
Livestock is graded for purchase by a grading committee of three, consisting of a livestock auctioneer, a butcher and a farmer, who have deputies who can be called upon to act in the absence of their principals.
Livestock graders are paid a small headage fee for each animal examined.
2. Animals are slaughtered, and meat is distributed to butchers, by a contractor and a Wholesale Meat Supply Association, acting as agents of the Ministry of Food.

CONTROL COMMITTEES.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Food under which statutory order he has empowered local sub-committees of food control committees to be established, to take action for alleged offences against the statutory orders made by the Minister of Food, without first being confirmed by the whole of the food control committee?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: By the Food Control Committees (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Enforcement Order, 1939. I have authorised food control committees (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) to prosecute any summary offence against the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, occasioned by any breach of an Order made by me under

these Regulations. Under the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1939, food control committees may appoint sub-committees from among their members with such powers and duties as may from time to time be assigned to them by any food control committee with my approval, and in a number of cases my approval has been given to the assignment to such sub-committees of the power to prosecute summary offences.

Mr. Anderson: Is it true that these sub-committees have been given power to prosecute without first consulting the food control committees?

Mr. Morrison: It depends in each case on the extent of the delegation by the food control committee to its own sub-committee.

Mr. Anderson: Has the right hon. Gentleman not also issued a circular suggesting that there should be sub-committees with full control to prosecute, without the food control committees being first consulted, and is that not a breach of the understanding when the matter was first discussed in this House?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not think that that entirely represents the position. I think it has been generally recognised that it is a convenient way of despatching business to have complaints investigated by a smaller body than the full food control committees.

Mr. Anderson: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

HERRING.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food in view of the fact that the Ministry of Food cured 86,000 crans of herring last season and sold them at a profit of £30,000, what steps are being taken to dispose of the unshipped herring now in the hands of the curers?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to a quantity of 23,000 barrels of cured herring, which were packed during the 1939 season, and were still unshipped for export at the outbreak of war. For these herring there is, I am informed, no market in the United Kingdom, and it would appear to be for the owners to endeavour to export them to suitable markets abroad.

Mr. Boothby: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to assist the owners to export the herring; and, in the event of their being unable to do so, does he not think that in the circumstances the Government ought to accept responsibility?

Mr. Morrison: What we have done is to give an undertaking that we would not export any of the herring we have bought to the markets normally available for the export trade; and that undertaking we have observed. As for the disposal of these herring, that is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Boothby: For whose Department is it a matter?

POULTRY INDUSTRY (FEEDING-STUFFS).

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Food whether he is taking steps to secure that accredited poultry-breeding stations shall receive adequate supplies of feeding-stuffs to maintain at least a portion of their stock in existence?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir. On 5th January the chairmen of county feeding-stuffs committees were asked to give special attention to the needs of owners of sound foundation poultry stock to enable them to obtain sufficient supplies of feeding-stuffs, and in this connection attention was drawn to accredited breeders as being owners of such stock who could be readily identified. In addition, arrangements have now been made to establish in each county a small reserve of feeding-stuffs which will be at the disposal of the chairmen of the county feeding-stuffs committee, to meet emergency cases of genuine hardship; a breeder of sound foundation poultry stock, whether accredited or not, will be eligible to receive supplies from this reserve provided he is unable to obtain sufficient supplies through the usual trade channels to maintain his breeding stock.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION, EVACUATION AREAS.

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice):asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has any statement to make on the subject of compulsory education in evacuation areas?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The Board are to-day notify-

ing local education authorities that the law of school attendance must again be enforced in evacuation areas directly sufficient school accommodation, whether on full-time or half-time basis, is available. The fact that authorities may not be able at once to provide school accommodation for children of all ages should not prevent the application of the law of school attendance to those age groups for which there is accommodation. The date at which it will be found possible to re-introduce compulsory attendance must necessarily vary as between one authority and another, but this step must be taken directly conditions make it possible, and in any case not later than the beginning of next term.
A circular on this matter is being sent to local education authorities to-day. Further, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Home Security, in agreement with the Minister of Health, is to-day communicating with local authorities for Civil Defence with a view to the return to educational use of school premises diverted to Civil Defence purposes.
It is the Government's policy that no obstacle should be allowed to prevent the restoration of full-time education at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Can the hon. Member, from his negotiations with these other Departments, give any time when he expects that full-time education will be restored?

Mr. Lindsay: I would rather not give a date for the restoration of full-time education. But I did give a date for compulsory school attendance—the be-ginning of next term. I hope that, with the concessions which are being made, it will be possible to restore full-time education in the evacuation areas during next term.

Sir P. Harris: Will the hon. Member make it quite clear to local authorities that they must make provision for infants and junior classes, just as much as for senior classes? At present, I understand, no provision is being made for either infants or junior children.

Mr. Lindsay: I meant the terms "full-time education" and "compulsory education" to apply to children between five and fourteen.

Mr. Westwood: Is the House to understand that similar action is being taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Education Department?

Mr. Lindsay: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is sending out a parallel circular in Scotland.

Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. Member insist on air-raid shelters being erected in these schools before the children go back?

Mr. Lindsay: Protection will be made available in every school.

Mr. Burke: If there is not room immediately for the whole school population, is the hon. Member making any suggestions as to the age groups which will have priority?

Mr. Lindsay: That is a matter for the local education authorities. If at the moment any authority can enforce the law in regard to school attendance for those under 11 they may do so tomorrow.

Sir A. Knox: Is my hon. Friend taking any steps in the reception areas to provide education? Does he know that there are several areas where the local children are deprived of the use of their schools for half the day by evacuees?

Mr. Lindsay: I know that in some reception areas there is half-time education going on. The position represents a great advance on anything in the evacuation areas at the moment; and I am not aware that any local children have been deprived of part-time education in the reception areas.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the 600 or more members of the hon. Gentleman's Department who have been seconded to other Departments now come back to the Board of Education, including the medical officers?

Mr. Lindsay: That is a very interesting question, but I cannot answer it on this.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is it the intention to give parents another opportunity of evacuating their children before this compulsory attendance is enforced?

GOVERNMENT AND RAILWAYS (AGREEMENT).

Captain Wallace: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a full statement on the negotiations between the Government and the railway companies.
I am glad to say that agreement has now been reached with the four main line railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board as to the financial arrangements for the period during which these undertakings are under Government control.
The general principle is that the undertakings shall be operated under unified control on an economic basis and that appropriate charges shall be made for Government traffic. The main provisions of the agreement are as follow: The receipts and expenses of the controlled undertakings will be pooled and out of the pool they will be paid annual sums equivalent, in the case of the railway companies, to the average of their net revenues for the years 1935, 1936 and 1937 and, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, to its net revenue for the year ended 30th June, 1939. The payment of these sums, amounting approximately to £40,000,000, will be guaranteed by the Government.
If the amount in the pool exceeds these guaranteed net revenues, the undertakings will be allowed to retain in full the first £3,500,000 of excess, but beyond that point the Exchequer will take one-half of the net revenue until the undertakings reach their standard revenues after which the whole of the balance in the pool will be taken by the Exchequer.
There are special provisions to deal with the case of the London Passenger Transport Board during the early months of the war, when its undertaking suffered severe dislocation owing to the need for taking special precautions against air raids.
The agreement will provide for standardizing charges for maintenance, for dealing with the problem of war damage and for bringing the receipts and expenses arising from the requisitioning of privately-owned wagons within the pool. There will also be provisions dealing with the adjustment of rates, fares and charges to meet variations in working costs and war conditions.
I am circulating a White Paper dealing with this agreement which will be available in the Vote Office after Questions to-day.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he thinks it is reasonable, as the Government are guaranteeing the profits of the companies as in the years preceding the war, that the Government should contemplate profits going up to the standard revenue which in fact has not been earned, as far as I can remember, since the passage of the Railways Act, 1921? In these circumstances, does not he think the Government have been unduly generous to the companies, and ought he not to keep the profits at the level at which they were during the three years immediately preceding the war, and not contemplate any higher profits?

Mr. Holdsworth: Does that apply to wages too?

Captain Wallace: I think that it would perhaps be better if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to read the White Paper. I should like to say in general terms that, in my view, this settlement represents a coherent, logical and reasonable scheme. It is the fact that, after the guaranteed minimum, there is a further period during which the undertakings can retain the whole of their additional earnings, but, after £43,500,000, the Exchequer takes a half share. I hope that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will read the White Paper before they make any criticisms.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman meet the point? The Government are actually guaranteeing the pre-war profits of the last three years, and does he think that, in view of that guarantee, which is of great value to the shareholders, the Government ought to contemplate that their profits during the war period may go substantially beyond the guaranteed profits of the average of the last three years; and, secondly, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Prime Minister give some indication whether facilities will be given for a discussion of this agreement by the House of Commons?

Captain Wallace: I think that the right hon. Gentleman really has only looked at one side of the picture. It is not a question, as he seems to put it, of supplying the railways with public money out of the Exchequer. As far as it is possible to forecast at present, it seems that the railways will not only reach their minimum, and therefore not involve the Government in any subvention whatever, but that the taxpayers may be able to have a share in the profits. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks about pre-war earnings, that, as everybody knows, the Government and the nation intend to make very much more use of the railways during the war than in peace-time. As regards the question of a Debate, the right hon. Gentleman will see from what the Prime Minister said last Thursday that my right hon. Friend dealt precisely with that question.

Mr. Attlee: Has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman just indicated that it is within the power of the Government to say what traffic shall be on the railways and to control alternative forms of traffic, and that therefore it is really in the power of the Government, if they choose, to enable the railways to get a much higher rate of profit than they have been able to earn under pre-war conditions?

Captain Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman had my job he would realise that we want all the transport we can get during the war.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister tell us the difficulties with which he met in arriving at an agreement which was so obviously advantageous to the railway shareholders; and can he explain why there was any difficulty at all in coming to that solution, as I understand that there have been very protracted negotiations?

Captain Wallace: There are, of course, a large number of detailed questions to be dealt with in the settlement, and I was most anxious—and I am sure the House has been most anxious—that we should have a watertight agreement. As regards the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he seems to be begging a fairly big question.

Mr. Maxton: I think you are

Mr. Ridley: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, since the prospective profit figure agreed to has apparently to be related to the capital structure, any attempt was made on the part of the Minister to secure a reconstruction of the overburdened capital structure of the holding companies; and whether, also, any attempt was made to secure a modification of the standard revenue fixed as a result of the 1921 Act and related to the realistic circumstances of 1940?

Captain Wallace: I think that, under the arrangement that has been made with the railways, it will be a long time before the figure of standard revenue is reached, so we cannot expect the standard revenue figure of 1921 to be regarded as a likely target. I do not think, either, that it would be a very wise policy to try to undertake, by Government compulsion, the capital reconstruction of the railway system at the beginning of war.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say, on the economic side of this arrangement, which side was advised by Lord Stamp?

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL,

"to postpone the making of new valuation lists for rating purposes in England, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by Miss Horsbrugh and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1938).

Statement Ordered,

"showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil and Revenue Departments and the Navy, Army and Air Services, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1939."—[Captain Crookshank.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,

"That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Woolton to attend to be examined, as a Witness, before the

Sub-Committee on Supply Services, appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir H. Williams.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they give leave to the Lord Woolton to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Sub-Committee on Supply Services appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939).

Estimate presented, of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1940 [by Command] Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 50.]

DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Turkey) Amendment Order, 1940, dated the eleventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the sixteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, be approved.
The House will wish really to apprehend the reasons for the Order for which I am requesting approval. I am afraid I must go back a few years and give a very brief account of the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Turkey. For many years past the exports from this country to Turkey have been in excess of Turkey's exports to this country. One of the main reasons for this disparity lay in the fact that the Turkish currency had been over-valued. The Turkish Government, for reasons which seemed good to them, had been reluctant to devalue their currency, and in the pre-war years they were encouraged to maintain it by the willingness of Germany to purchase Turkish produce at prices that were well in excess of prices ruling on the world market. As the importers in this country were not prepared to pay those excessive prices, there was during all those years a large disparity between our sales in Turkey and our purchases from Turkey. As long ago as 1936 a warning to traders in this country was issued by the Board of Trade urging caution and pointing out that exporters in this country could not expect to see funds made available for payment for their goods. Indeed, I remember that one of the early steps that I took when I was appointed to my present position was to hold a meeting with representatives of chambers of commerce in this country early in 1938 to urge them to introduce a system of voluntary rationing of British exports to Turkey in order to try and establish some equilibrium between the two sides. I failed, and eventually, later in 1938, a supplementary agreement between this country and Turkey was drawn up and signed, providing for a compulsory limitation of British sales to Turkey for payment through the Clearing. Again the object that we had in view was not achieved, because although our exports to

Turkey were to some extent restricted, our purchases from Turkey fell even more.
To cut a long story short, in the summer of last year, just before the war broke out, debts owing from Turkey to exporters in this country amounted to some £2,000,000, and the ordinary exporter here had to anticipate waiting for anything from three to five years before he would get paid. During the same summer the commercial interests in this country discussed the matter with us and asked us whether it would not be possible to devise some means of liquidating these arrears and then placing the whole of our commerce with Turkey on what is known as a compensation basis. It did not seem possible to find any machinery which would enable us to accede to the first part of that request, namely, to liquidate the arrears at one fell swoop, but there is no doubt at all in my mind that the commercial community in this country were very anxious to see some means devised for liquidating those arrears in order that a new compensation system might start with a clear field. We were unable, however, at that time to arrive at an agreement. Then the war came, and after a certain amount of negotiation the House will be aware that we and the French signed a series of agreements with the Turkish Government, particulars of which are being published in the White Paper to-day, under which we and the French Government agreed to provide £15,000,000 in gold in Turkey and the sum of £25,000,000 for the provision of munitions and certain other materials that Turkey was anxious to purchase.
We also took the opportunity of trying to see whether we could not reach some agreement for liquidating those £2,000,000 of arrears, and after long negotiations it was finally decided that we should make a loan to Turkey of £2,000,000, the bulk of which was to be devoted to liquidating the arrears. Then, however, came the question to be decided of the basis on which those arrears should be paid off, and I am anxious that the House should realise what in effect we are doing when arrangements are made to pay manufacturers and exporters in this country debts which have been incurred by Turkey. If the House will remember, I said that even if there had been no war, it was probable that the exporters in this country would have had to wait anything from three to five years before they got


payment, and I hope the House will agree that it would have been quite unjustifiable to pay off to-day at their full face value debts which otherwise would only have been paid off in from three to five years. Obviously some discount had to be taken into account, and the amount had to be scaled down. The only question was the amount of that discount.
I understand that later in the Debate representations will be made on behalf of certain portions of the commercial community to the effect that we ought to have consulted them about the amount of discount, but, as I have already pointed out, we were aware that the commercial community wanted these debts to be liquidated by some financial arrangement at once. It is quite clear that they wanted to pay as small a discount as possible. We did not have to consult them to know that. It is equally clear that the Turkish Government did not want the discount to be unreasonably small, and it was our job to try and make the best arrangement that we could in all the circumstances. The final arrangement, which was the result of long, laborious, and very careful discussions on both sides, represents discounts as set forth in the agreement which I am asking the House to approve. There is no doubt that when you are dealing with 6,000 separate accounts, there are bound to be individual cases of hardship, but I would remind the House that this is not a compulsory scheme. Any exporter in this country who is owed money in Turkey does not have to be paid off. He can use his Turkish pounds to purchase in Turkey any of the 10 commodities listed in the Schedule for subsequent import into this country. I do not pretend that this year that will be of very great advantage to him, because several of the articles are subject to import licences, but, speaking personally, I think that possibly next year, if things go well—certainly well within five years—that right will be of considerable value, and in fact he will not be any worse off if he accepts that alternative than he would have been if we had not made this arrangement.

Mr. Riley: Are the prices to be world prices?

Mr. Hudson: The prices he will pay will be whatever he can buy for in Turkey. I do not know what the prices will be

but at all events if he would rather take a chance in the next few years, he can do it. Therefore, he is under no compulsion under this scheme. In future all private trade will be on a compensation basis between the two countries, and I hope, therefore, that the difficulties which we have to surmount at present or have had to surmount in the past will not recur. There is only one other point to which I wish to call attention, and that is the provision in Article 5 that certain purchases by His Majesty's Government will be exempt from the clearing. That is in order to enable us to transfer here things like tobacco which we shall buy from Turkey as part of our arrangements with them for the liquidation of the loans which we and the French have made of £15,000,000 and £25,000,000.

4.11 p.m.

I think the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which he has explained this rather complicated clearing arrangement—a clarity which we always expect from him—but I think his speech shows his incurable optimism. It is 18 months since we discussed the last Turkish clearing order, and the commercial and economic background then and the picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman then were very different from the picture now. Then we had just agreed on a £10,000,000 credit to Turkey for the purpose of the development of Turkish production and trade, and although it is true that there were £1,500,000 of blocked credits in Turkey—frozen credits—

Mr. MacLaren: What is frozen credit? Stop this nonsense and talk English.

Mr. Benson: How would that help, when my hon. Friend is a Scotsman? Although there were £1,500,000 frozen credits in Turkey, the picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman was one in which these frozen credits were to be thawed out in no time. Of the £10,000,000 credit, £500,000 was to be spent internally in Turkey and available for this purpose. There was £100,000 a year to come from Anglo-Turkish Commodities, Ltd. There was 10 per cent. to be set aside from compensation trade, and compensation trade was at last to be made available for the unblocking of those frozen credits; and, finally, the non-compensation imports into Turkey were


limited to £500,000. The actual words of the right hon. Gentleman describing the effect of all those various matters were:
We anticipate that a vast reduction in arrears will be achieved in the course of the next two years.
That was the anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman, but what has happened? Instead of a vast reduction, there has been a vast increase in the frozen credits—an extraordinary increase, when one takes into consideration the £500,000 limit on imports. In June of 1938 the frozen assets were £1,500,000. In September, 14 months later, they had risen to £2,000,000. That is, although our import trade had been limited to £500,000 a year, in some 14 or 15 months the frozen credits in Turkey had risen actually by £500,000. In 1938 a £500,000 quota was imposed. This year they had to prohibit entirely all imports into Turkey. Quite frankly, there has been an extraordinary deterioration in Anglo-Turkish trade. In fact, it seems almost at a standstill.
There were many complaints from traders when they saw the publication of the Schedule of this Order, but the whole of their criticism of the bargain struck for them, and the money provided for them by the Overseas Trade Department, is entirely unjustified. They have got an extraordinarily good bargain. In view of the history of the last 18 months, in view of the war, and in view of Article 5, which the right hon. Gentleman slurred over very carefully, what chance have they of getting their money in five years? The probable date when they would be able to collect their debts is the Greek Kalends. There is one point about which I want to quarrel. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was not a compulsory settlement, that any trader who liked could, as an alternative, unblock his credits by means of compensation trading. In theory that is perfectly true: it is allowed for under the Clearing Agreement, but to what does it actually boil down? A Lancashire cotton manufacturer who sent goods to Turkey can, if he wants to unblock his credits, and if he can get an import licence, import attar of roses, although what he is going to do when he gets it is another matter. Actually the practice of an English exporter sending goods to Turkey and bringing goods back from Turkey does not work out. The much more complex

system of mutual compensation trading between a number of parties on either side does not work either, and if a man wants to unblock his credits by means of compensation trade he has got to buy compensation sterling.
Compensation sterling at the present moment stands at a premium between 60 and 70 per cent., so that even at the present figure any exporter who tries to get paid by compensation sterling has to take a lower price than is offered to him by the right hon. Gentleman. The alternative is really "Hobson's choice,"and I would ask the House to mark this: Hitherto the number of articles in which compensation trading could be carried on was vastly greater than now. Only five or six months ago there was something like 40 articles, but since the war the whole of Turkish products have been thrown open to compensation trade and are available for the unblocking of credits. Yet in spite of this compensation sterling still stands at between 60 and 70 per cent. premium. What will go on when we have a limit of 10 small articles, as you find in the Schedule of this Order? We must face the fact that compensation trading has broken down once and for all.
The real sting of the Agreement lies in Article 5, which deals with Turkish pounds in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. That very small Article covers, not a multitude of sins, but a multitude of difficulties. It sounds the death knell of ordinary commercial trading between England and Turkey for a generation. It means that for many years to come the imports from Turkey to this country—and that is the only method by which we can get payment of our debts—will be imported upon the Government account for the purpose of servicing the various loans and credits granted by the Government. I am not complaining of these credits; I am merely pointing out what in actual fact will be the position of Anglo-Turkish trade. What is the present position under the credits already granted? There are three loans of which details will be found in the Treaty of Mutual Assurance. There is a £2,000,000 loan, a credit of £25,000,000, and a loan of £15,000,000. Both the £25,000,000 and £15,000,000 are joint loans from this country and France. In addition there is a £10,000,000 credit


which was granted in 1938 and which now becomes due for service.

Mr. Hudson: A £10,000,000 armament credit is included in the £25,000,000.

Mr. Benson: I referred to the £10,000,000 commercial credit of 1938, not the more recent armament loan. Our share of the service without any French share will this year amount to £1,000,000. In 1945, when the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we might start unblocking frozen credits, the service and amortisation will amount to over £1,750,000. In 1951 it will amount to £2,200,000, and in 1952 the £6,000,000 armament loan becomes due for service. The Government loans, therefore, for many years to come will take more than double the present imports from Turkey. The method by which the loans will be serviced is laid out in the Treaty of Mutual Assurance. It is unusual and, I think, novel. The amortisation funds and interest will be paid by the Turkish Government into an English Government account in Turkey, in Turkish pounds. With these the Government will buy tobacco and any other Turkish commodities for the purpose of import into this country, with the limitation that the goods must be consumed here. In the last five years the total average imports per annum from Turkey to this country amounted to less than £1,250,000. Thus the service for loans which have been granted during the last 18 months or two years will absorb more than double the total amount of Turkish imports into this country.
What is the use of a trader or anybody else pretending that there will be anything left over for unblocking frozen credits or even for carrying on normal Turkish trade? These loans if they are to be serviced will require an immense extension of Turkish trade, the whole of which must be absorbed by the Government for servicing. I think the traders of this country have got an extremely generous bargain. Let us look at the circumstances once again. To begin with, the trade carried on has been speculative. It has been carried on in the face of continuous warnings by the Board of Trade that traders might have to wait for their money, might even, perhaps, have to whistle for it. The prices at which they exported to Turkey were heavily padded

in order that they should be covered not merely against the waiting period but against risk so that even a 40 per cent. discount is not really a serious discount on the normal world prices. Again, the possibility of payment as the result of the war is very greatly reduced. Taking all these things into consideration, I think the fact that English traders are going to get their money back at a discount of from 3 to 40 per cent. is an example of extreme generosity on the part of the Treasury. Whether that patient beast of burden the English Treasury will ever see its money back is a very different question. In the circumstances I think that the arrangements which have been made leave no reasonable ground for criticism on the part of the English trader.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Price: This Measure will regularise the position between England and Turkey with regard to our commercial exchanges, and I agree with the Minister and my hon. Friend who has just spoken that the exporters have no real grievance in the settlement along the lines of this rather heavy discount. One cannot expect the British taxpayer, in principle, to bear this very heavy burden, but, on the other hand, I am inclined to be a little critical of what has happened in the last few years between ourselves and Turkey in regard to commercial exchanges, not because of the losses which private traders have sustained but because of the situation which has been allowed to develop. In the agreement of 1938 with Turkey arrangements were made to finance trading between the two countries. In effect, however, there was no financing, because during the last 18 months there was a steady accumulation in the debts in Turkey to this country, which resulted in an almost complete stoppage of commercial exchanges between the two countries. Sterling exchange was obtainable only on certain Turkish products, and was not obtainable on a whole list of other commodities. Consequently, the debts accumulated.
It is not right to regard trade between this country and Turkey as being purely of private commercial interest, for there is a big question of high policy involved. The relationship between this country and Turkey has to be looked at from the point of view of international politics. The friendship between Turkey and this


country is one that has become of increasing political importance. Therefore, it is not the right way to deal with the problem to look upon Anglo-Turkish commercial exchanges as being a question of private interests and private profits. Turkey has been receiving the attention of the Power with which we are now at war. We know that the Nazi commercial policy is a totalitarian one which uses commercial exchanges for the purposes of power politics and the political domination of the country with which Germany is dealing. This has gradually dawned upon the people of Turkey, and particularly since the attitude of Russia changed and there was arranged a virtual alliance between Nazi Germany and Russia, Turkey has seen the danger. Therefore, it is a mistake to regard this agreement as a purely commercial transaction. I noticed that the Minister did not refer to this aspect of the question, but I think it is one of which we should not lose sight.
We are now making a clean sweep; we are clearing off these debts at a discount and apparently at a loss to those who have been engaged in this trade. I think it was a mistake to allow the situation to develop in this way over the last 18 months; I believe it would have been better if, earlier on, the Government had seen the economic importance of the Turkish Republic in the international sphere, and had regarded commercial operations with Turkey as being of State concern. We ought not to have allowed private interests to accumulate commercial debts in this manner. It would have been possible to set up an Anglo-Turkish commercial organisation, under Government control and with State capital, which could have developed the commercial relations between the two countries.
I am not certain how far it is possible to develop commercial exchanges with Turkey at the present time in regard to the export of tobacco and a number of articles which are not particularly needed in this country at this time. We know the difficulties of getting Turkish tobacco, and Balkan tobacco for that matter, into consumption in this country, but having, many years ago, travelled across the Continent of Anatolia, the high plateau that is now Asiatic Turkey, I am confident that it is possible to develop there,

as the Turks are trying to do by irrigation, more than ever before, the growing of cereals and agricultural products of all kinds, including cotton in certain districts. With the development that is going on there, I believe it will be possible to build up a commercial exchange that will enable the Turkish Republic to pay off all the credits we are now giving. Therefore, I hope that, with the acceptance of this settlement, the matter will not be allowed to remain there, but will be used as an opportunity for developing on a large scale, under State control, the economic relations between this country and Turkey.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This Order can be looked at from a number of different aspects, some of which have already been developed in the Debate. In the first place, it can be regarded as a purely commercial transaction between the two countries, for which purpose the nationals of each country may be lumped together with the Exchequer of that country. Viewed from that angle, it amounts to feeding a dog with its own tail. When the nationals of this country sell things to Turkey, normally they would be paid by nationals of Turkey or by the Turkish Government, but in fact, of course, they are not to be paid in any such way. They are to be paid by the British Exchequer. We are liquidating the commercial debts that have been incurred, and which are owed to our own nationals, by paying them ourselves. That is what I describe as feeding a dog with its own tail.
But this is not a commercial arrangement. It is a political arrangement. It is an arrangement that is devised because it is very desirable that the political relations between this country and Turkey shall be kept on an even keel and everybody be pleased by the results. For that purpose, no doubt, the arrangement is a singularly happy one, because it deals with the existing unreality of Turkish trade by settling it ourselves instead of making any international trouble in order to bring about a settlement. In time of war, normal commercial balances tend to be obliterated or lost sight of, and it is highly important that, at any rate for the time being, political considerations should be given the prime position.
There is another aspect to which I should like to make a brief reference. This


agreement, and the whole of its history to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, points to the complete disorganisation of world trade. The idea which a great many people have of world trade is that somebody sells goods from one country to another country and gets paid in cash. Of course, the really substantial background is something entirely different. World trade is not really carried on in cash, but is a glorified system of barter. That barter has very rarely been bilateral, but, in the successful periods of world trade, has been multilateral. A number of people—among them, I believe, some hon. Members of this House—imagine that the great glory of a country is to sell a very large number of exports to foreign countries and not to be paid anything in exchange. If that were really the summum bonumof international trade, Turkey would provide a most perfect example for this country, for whereas some countries are so wicked as to send us a very large amount of their goods in consequence of the fact that we send them a large amount of our goods, Turkey up till now has not been able to send us very much, whereas we have sent her a very great deal.
In my view, that is of very doubtful advantage to this country, but from a narrow Protectionist point of view, it is magnificent; and if all the countries in the world were the same as Turkey, and took millions upon millions of our exports and never sent a single import in exchange, this country, according to Protectionists, would be supremely happy. The position into which we have come as a result of the facts with regard to Turkey illustrates the fallacy of that purely Protectionist theory. For some years past, we have been confronted by the fact that we were not getting rid of the Turkish debt. Owing to the complete muddle and breakdown of world economic transactions, what might have been settled by multilateral trade has not been settled, and the position between this country and Turkey, commercially, has grown worse. The result is that the right hon. Gentleman asks us to-day to pass this Order, feeding our own dog with its own tail, and thereby getting rid of the difficulty. Considering the general position in the world, that is probably the best thing to do.
I shall not enlarge upon the detailed arrangements between the Treasury and

the exporters. On the face of it, the exporters are having a very raw deal, because for every £100 which they expected to receive, some of them will receive only £60, and some of them even a little less. On the face of it, that appears to be a very unsatisfactory position for them, but I suspect that in all probability most of them, although not necessarily all of them, will not do so very badly, after all, because they must have foreseen that it was one thing to do a roaring export business and quite another thing to get paid for it promptly at the figure for which the bill was sent in. I suspect that most of them will regard themselves as quite fortunate if the result of this agreement is that they see ready money, even though that money is at a considerable discount on the amount at which the debts owed to them stand in their books. Therefore, I shall not weep crocodile's tears about the position of the British exporters. Some of them may be very badly hit and, of course, we are sorry for them; but taking it broadly, I imagine that, although they may not have struck a very lucrative bargain, they will be fortunate, in view of the conditions of the trade, even before the war and still more now, in that they will receive a substantial part of the money about which they were very doubtful before the agreement was framed. Therefore, although this Order is a kind of allegory of the times and may, perhaps, be looked upon in years to come as showing in what a mad world we live at the present time, I cannot say that I would wish to see the House reject it, and I shall ask my hon. Friends to give it their support.

4.45 p.m

Major Milner: I am sorry to differ somewhat from my hon. Friends but, frankly, I am not happy about this agreement. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken suggested that British exporters might consider themselves fortunate in obtaining payment at all, and that now they are, at any rate, assured of being paid at some time, subject to a considerable discount. There are friends of mine in the city of Leeds who do a considerable amount of export business and who are going to suffer considerable loss if this agreement goes through. In that case they have never been in any real doubt about being paid at some date. Hitherto their bills, drawn on the customer in Turkey, have been regularly met on


maturity, although it is true that the amount in question has been paid into this clearing account. They have eventually, I understand, in respect of old accounts, month by month or year by year, received payment in full. If that be so, I do not see the justification for their having to suffer a discount of anything up to 40 per cent.
It may be, as my right hon. Friend has said, that in many cases this has been provided for in the contract or in the price arranged and that the British exporter will feel quite happy about it, but, surely, in that case the matter should be one for inquiry into each case on the merits. In the case of some exports provision may have been made for delayed payment, or in some few cases if you like little or no payment at all may have been in contemplation, though it seems unlikely. I agree that the Order provides something rather better than that, but surely, as I say, it is a matter for inquiry on the merits in each case. I understand that there is a great number of these cases. I cannot imagine that there is anything like the number which had to be settled through the clearing arrangements between ourselves and Germany after the last war, when there were hundreds of thousands. I do not know the number involved here, but it seems to me that some better arrangement might have been made when we were lending this money to another country.
I have had considerable experience in acting legally for those who lend or borrow money, and the first thing done by a man who lends money in the case of someone who already owes him money in respect of a previous loan, is to have that previous loan paid off first, and I should have thought that that was the simple, straightforward course. Out of the sum, whatever it may be, which we advanced to Turkey a certain proportion should have been used to pay off these debts. I was surprised to hear hon. Members speak as if the taxpayers of this country were really going to pay the exporters. They would appear to assume that none of this money will ever be repaid to us. If that is in the mind of the Government, we ought to be told frankly whether such is the case or not. It may be proper to lend money in such circumstances, but it seems to me that the more straightforward course would be to pay

the money over and to say nothing about it, rather than to enter into an arrangement which professes to be a loan, but in regard to which those in authority apparently—I hope I am wrong—do not expect to be repaid. I do not regard the agreement with satisfaction. I think a better arrangement might have been made and that exporters from this country to Turkey are entitled to more consideration than they have received. Either provision should have been made for payment in full or every case should have been considered on its merits and a proper discount allowed according to the circumstances.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for their remarks. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this Order shows the evil of commercial bilateralism. Unfortunately, "The evil that men do lives after them,"and we are paying now and, indeed, will have to go on paying for the evil effects of that commercial bilateralism in the case of Turkey. While agreeing with the hon. Member for Chesterfield that it is very dangerous to make any prophecies, I would say that we must remember that Germany was Turkey's main market and if as a result of the change in the political relationship between Turkey, France and ourselves Turkey's trade with Germany is, as we hope, going to diminish, then, clearly, an alternative market and outlet for Turkish products will have to be found. In order to help the economy of Turkey in the meantime, we have, to a great extent, to go on with this bilateralism and we shall have to find in this country an alternative market for Turkey's produce, otherwise she will be unable to export.
Therefore, although in peace time I should be inclined to agree that after the arrangements which have been made for the amortisation of the interest on the Government's loan, there would be very little left for the ordinary trader, I do not think the situation will be quite as bad in the next year or two under war conditions. I should anticipate that our imports from Turkey this year and probably also next year might even amount to between £4,000,000 and £6,000,000 as against something like £1,000,000. Therefore, I hope there will be scope for the


ordinary private purchaser and to some extent for some of those hard cases previously mentioned. It will be open to them to invest their Turkish pounds in the purchase, not merely of attar of roses, but of carpets, hemp and other products.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Clearing Office (Turkey) Amendment Order, 1940, dated the eleventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the sixteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, be approved."

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £55,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and a grant in aid of the Royal Institute of International Affairs."

4.55 p.m.

The Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Perhaps it will be convenient if I say a few words now in support of this Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate. We might then, if desired, take a discussion on the Vote for Diplomatic and Consular Services which follows. If that is the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I will proceed to deal with this Foreign Office Estimate in the first place.

The Chairman: I do not think there is any special reason why these Votes should be discussed together.

Mr. Dalton: I imagine that it would be convenient if we could take Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Office) first. On Vote 2 which deals with the Diplomatic and Consular Services there are several discussable matters and perhaps, Sir

Dennis, you could rule as to the manner in which it is to be taken, when we reach it.

The Chairman: I propose to take each Vote separately with everything which comes under the heading of that particular Vote. Probably what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the fact that on very special occasions—and I have always required very special reasons for adopting this course—we have taken two Votes together. Those cases, however, are exceptions. The rule is to take the Votes separately, as they are set out on the Order Paper.

Mr. Butler: I think the course which I am taking, Sir Dennis, conforms to your Ruling, which is what I anticipated. I will, therefore, begin with a few words of explanation of the various heads under which this supplementary sum of £55,200 is asked. There is little to say about the first four heads. These are, Salaries, £14,000; Communications Department, £3,000; Incidental Expenses, £1,200 and Telephones, £2,000. The only generalisation I would make on these heads is that, during a period prior to the war, there was greatly increased tension and much more work was thrown on the Foreign Office. The increase under the head of Telephones, for example, was due to the fact that certain members of the Foreign Office were placed outside the office for a short period. There have been movings about and the cost of telephones has increased. The increase under the head of Salaries is due to the same reason of increased work and increased anxiety involving the employment of extra staff. Unless it is specially desired, I do not think further comment on those heads is necessary.
It will be necessary, however, and perhaps helpful if I say a few words about the main sum involved in this Estimate, a sum of £35,000 in respect of the Institute of International Affairs (Grant-in-Aid). This sum is required for the Grant-in-Aid up to 31st March to meet the services rendered by Chatham House. The period for which the sum is required is about seven months and the total sum falling on Government funds in a full year would amount to about £55,000. The total expenses of the organisation of Chatham House in a year, which I shall


shortly explain more fully to the Committee, is about £12,000 more than that figure. That additional sum is contributed by the University of Oxford and by certain colleges, notably All Souls and Balliol, and by the Royal Institute itself, which has given its available revenue, amounting to approximately £6,000, for the work of Chatham House in war time. The Committee may take it, therefore, that the State, in using the services of Chatham House, to that extent, thanks to the generosity of the University of Oxford and the colleges and the provision of the Royal Institute itself, is relieved of a sum of £12,000.
I explained the organisation of Chatham House on 21st November last in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). Since that date the position has been closely re-examined by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the representatives of Chatham House. The three aspects of the work of Chatham House which I adumbrated on 21st November have been re-examined and the result of the re-examination has been to show that all three aspects of this work are valuable. Let me now describe them. The first is a comprehensive examination of the foreign Press. This is the only place within the organisation of the Government where the whole foreign Press is comprehensively examined—the Press of some 65 countries brought together into one place and the result put forward in summarised memoranda which are extremely valuable to Government Departments. Because this comprehensive examination of the Press is different from individual messages from Press sources abroad, attachés and His Majesty's missions, which come in an individual point of view from the Press of a foreign country, this work of comprehensive examination is very valuable.
The second aspect of the work is the provision of memoranda compiled by Chatham House, which has exceptional facilities, for Government Departments. I have myself had an opportunity of appreciating the value of several of these memoranda. They are used by the Foreign Office, by the Service Departments, and the Ministry of Economic Warfare. They go to the Ministry of Information, the India Office, and the Colonial Office, to give some examples. The third aspect of the work of Chatham

House is the answering of specific queries and requests by Government Departments. In this connection the more requests for information the better, because there are essential facilities in the way of library services, and so forth, which enable the answers to be sent in war time and aid the governmental machine in the conduct of war.
Thus our re-examination made since the date of my reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury has proved that these aspects of the work of Chatham House are valuable. This re-examination, undertaken by members of the Foreign Office and representatives of Chatham House, also recommended a new arrangement by which there shall be close and continual contact with the departments of the Foreign Office, and we hope it will lead in the future to co-ordination of effort and to the necessary supervision of the work of the research and Press service of Chatham House and will thereby avoid overlapping with the official work of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Information. That aspect of the question is receiving immediate attention and the Minister of Information will, no doubt, place himself in contact and any unnecessary overlapping will be investigated.

Miss Rathbone: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what relation the work of Chatham House has to the machinery for propaganda in enemy and neutral countries?

Mr. Butler: There is no relation between the Chatham House research and Press service, which is a war-time organisation, and the organisation for propaganda in enemy countries, but the valuable work of Chatham House and its research facilities is used in the Departments which deal with enemy propaganda. The hon. Lady can rest assured that, though there is no connection between the Departments, there is co-ordination, and I can answer for it because the Foreign Office is the organisation which links the bodies.
The Committee may well ask whether this new arrangement will lead to further economies. I can give the assurance that the Foreign Office and the Treasury will keep constant watch upon expenditure and effect economies wherever possible. As the new arrangement is only just starting, I cannot give any more specific assurance of the amount of economies


than that, but I hope that one of the results of the arrangement will be that due economies may be made. It is, however, for the Committee to reflect that the work carried out by Chatham House would be extremely difficult to organise in any other manner. Those who have had experience of its work in peace time will realise that to replace its exceptional facilities by some ad hoc organisation would, without doubt, be more expensive.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: We managed to win the last war without it.

Mr. Butler: We won the last war with the aid of an efficient intelligence service which performed functions not dissimilar from those transacted by Chatham House, and we shall win this war by an equally efficient service in which I am glad to welcome the assistance of the organisation of Chatham House. It will be valuable at this stage if I express the gratitude of the Government to the Royal Institute for the facilities which it provides. It has special facilities in its library and its Press cutting services, and it is to be noticed that this research and Press service is only a war-time organisation. The peacetime work of Chatham House will be continued at its London headquarters. It is important to make it clear that the work undertaken by Chatham House is not propaganda. Therefore criticisms on the subject of lack of co-ordination and publicity must be examined minutely in the sense that the work of Chatham House is an objective study, more scientific than propaganda. That is why we consider that the arrangement for co-ordination on the part of the Foreign Office to be most likely to be successful and most suitable, considering the work and services which Chatham House performs.
That explains the need for the sum asked for in the Estimate. Since the last answer to the House was given, the matter has been most closely re-examined. If any further points are raised in the course of the discussion I shall be only too glad to do my best to answer them and to reassure hon. Members that this service will be of real value to the Government. We consider that it is suitable that the foreign policy of this country should be conducted with the best possible aid in the crisis through which we are passing, and we are satisfied that the

work that Chatham House can do will be useful to us.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: There are one or two questions that I wish to ask arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I had a feeling that during this war too many people would be writing memoranda, and I should like to know in a broad general way what is the scope of this memoranda production machine which is now functioning. Are these memoranda merely informative? Are they collecting material which could easily be got elsewhere, or are they discussing projects such as federal union in order that the Government may begin to form a view, well in advance of the peace conference, as to the character of the new Europe, or, if the memoranda do not fall into either of these classes, how can they in a general fashion be described? I think there is a danger in overwhelming Ministers with too much reading matter. One Foreign Secretary, who deserved well of his country, was distinguished from others who have held that office by the fact that he insisted on reading very little when a matter could be very well explained in a short time by an official of his office. There is a very great danger of Ministers being overwhelmed by masses of written, typewritten, and printed stuff coming in from all sorts of learned gentlemen. We want a little more elucidation on the matter and, I hope, a certain restriction of output to what is really useful and reasonably necessary. In particular, I want to press the question that I put a moment ago. Are we getting from these gentlemen now some expert opinion about the settlement of Europe after the peace? There are several Government Departments here between which there ought to be close working and, in so far as these gentlemen at Oxford are producing information, one would think that they should have a certain relationship with the so-called Ministry of Information, and we should like a little more than the rather bland and agreeable assurance of the Under-Secretary that this close working is in fact taking place.
What is the actual relationship between these gentlemen and Ministers? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give some up-to-date information—particulars were furnished some time ago, but there has


been a revision since—as to the number of people who are working and the number of salaries that are being paid out of this £35,000 and, roughly, how they can be classified. Are there a certain number of professors of modern history, professors of ancient history and other topics and other sub-professorial people? How is it made up? I appreciate the very splendid and diversified work that they do, but would it be untrue to say that this is an arrangement whereby certain salaries which would normally have been paid for by the Institute, and certain other salaries which would normally have been paid for by the universities, have been transferred to the shoulders of the taxpayer? Would it be unfair to describe the arrangement in that way? Are the activities which the professorial, and other people, are now performing at Oxford essentially different from the activities at Chatham House?

5.15 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: It is very difficult for any ordinary Member of this House to discuss this matter of the Chatham House Vote, because it is wrapped in a mystery which has not been penetrated and will never be penetrated. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has asked several very pertinent questions, particularly in relation to this body and the Ministry of Information. The answers we shall await with very general interest. I think there are two aspects of this arrangement which cause profound uneasiness. Firstly, there is its bearing on the future of Chatham House. The organisation built up by the Royal Institute of International Affairs was for the detached and impartial study of international affairs. The whole basis and the whole value of its constitution lay in the fact that it was independent of any Government control or influence. Now it has become a Department of the Government and as such it will always be branded in the eyes of foreign observers. That is a matter for the Council of the Royal Institute, and it is no concern of this House; but what does concern this House very nearly is why, and upon what, this £5,000 a month is being spent. In answer to a Question I put in November, my right hon. Friend was good enough to give certain details as to the work of this body and a statement

of its personnel. In regard to the personnel, all that I can say is that if humanity was staggered by the demands of President Kruger after the South African War, many more people in this House and out of it were staggered at the array of professorial talent and the salaries necessary to produce this service.
The Under-Secretary has divided its work very rightly into three parts. The first part deals with the survey and digest of the foreign Press. Unfortunately perhaps for these gentlemen, that is the only part of its activities which ever meets the outside eye, and those who have seen it and studied it can find no value in it at all. There is produced at very frequent intervals, almost daily, a valuable summary of the foreign Press; this is telegraphed from the various capitals through the Foreign Office and is of the greatest value, because it is prompt. The survey and digest of Chatham House emerges weeks later. True, it contains a more detailed survey, but in the opinion of everyone who has seen it, it is of very little value, because it is so belated. The Under-Secretary has told us that this is the only comprehensive survey produced under Government auspices. It would be interesting indeed if Hon. Members would probe and inquire to find how many Departments of the Government are producing surveys of the foreign Press. There is hardly a Department where I do not find a large and costly body armed with scissors and mountains of paste producing summaries of the foreign Press. That is the only part of the activity of Chatham House which the eye sees; the rest we have to take on trust. I do not think we can ask the Under-Secretary to state the nature of the memoranda of which he spoke. I agree with what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said—that out of all these and other bodies there emerges such a mass of printed matter that it not only overwhelms the Government but makes it impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps it is a considerable factor in producing that paper shortage which exists at the present time in many parts of England.
All these Departments, I suggest, should be brought under review and under control. I think we have gone from one extreme to another—from over-centralization to decentralisation, widespread and overlapping in its activities. We have


now a multitude of publicity departments, each without any control, for it is absurd to expect overworked Ministers to control the work of all their Press organisations. I am personally content to wait, and I hope all Members in this House will strongly support the new Minister of Information if he comes to us for power to direct and supervise the publicity departments which have sprung up like mushrooms.
I am tempted to say a few words on the question of personnel. The Foreign Office has showed a charity almost transcending the powers of ordinary men in accepting the personnel of the Oxford professors. When I was in India many of my friends used to say that the surest path to fame and profit was to attack the Government, and that the more you attacked it the greater would be your reward. When I look at the personnel at Chatham House—and I do not want to go into names—I can only say that the Foreign Office have shown a charity almost too great for human beings in gently turning their cheeks to those who smote them—to those who have been acid critics of their policy in the last few years.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I can understand the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) attacking this organisation on the ground that war is a thing which is mainly won by soldiers and sailors and not by people doing some very careful and hard thinking. One recognises the overwhelming part that the fighting side plays, but is it unreasonable to suppose that in this war there is a considerable possibility that the side will win which does the cleverest thinking in the next few years, or even months? I can understand the criticism which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), that these men whom we are now employing very frequently disagreed with the policy pursued at Munich.

Sir S. Reed: I did not mention Munich; it was long before Munich.

Sir R. Acland: I understood that the hon. Member was complaining of the way in which the Government were now employing gentlemen who had smitten their foreign policy in the past, although much of that foreign policy has been proved wrong. It seems extraordinary that so

many of the Government Departments are staffed by individuals who never regarded that policy as anything but right. What I cannot understand is the attack coming from the Opposition.

Mr. Dalton: I did not attack. I asked questions, and when challenged for an opinion I deliberately withheld.

Sir R. Acland: I am quite prepared to believe that some of this expenditure can be reduced and that somebody in this Department is getting more money than he deserves, but is not the same thing true in any other Department? I am also prepared to believe that some of the work overlaps that of other Departments, but surely that is true to a certain extent of all Government work. I should not have thought that these are reasons for condemning this organisation. This body, independent of Government control, is of most extraordinary value, and its work may yield very remarkable results. If anything this Department thought of should result in shortening the war by 10 minutes, it would have paid for itself. I should have thought that the study of the foreign Press is something of immense value and that there was no ground for suggesting that it is unnecessary because of the summaries which are telegraphed from neutral agencies who, from the very nature of things, cannot appreciate what are the special items, particularly in the case of the German Press, which are of interest to us. The minutest items in the German Press might frequently suggest to a careful reader possibilities and difficulties inside Germany which we could exploit by timely action. Three or four lines of importance appearing in a local newspaper might never come to the knowledge of the Government if we had to rely on the neutral summaries telegraphed from abroad.
I would suggest that if it does not add too much to the expense, we might move some of our summary writers, and those who understand the points on which we might be interested, to Switzerland, where they would get the newspapers at least a day sooner and could telegraph reports which would reach this country more quickly. [An Hon. Member: "Why not Honolulu?"] Yes, if there is anything of importance to learn from there, but I should have thought the most important points were in connection with Germany. By a careful study of


the Press we might gain information of the most vital importance, and we should have that information in time. I would suggest, therefore, that this organisation should be given its trial and not crabbed and criticised by the House, that we should hope that excessive expenditure will be reduced, and that we should see the actual result in 12 months' working before we condemn it. I would only make one request to the Under-Secretary. Is there any reason why these Press summaries should not be available to Members of the House and that at least they should be put into the Library? I appreciate that when they contain any suggestions for action they could not be put in the Library, but when they are mere summaries it would be of value to Members if they could be made available.

5.31 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I hope that the Committee will Divide against this Vote. It is most unfortunate that we should allow unchecked the development of a new Government Department of this nature. It is true that in the last war we had no Chatham House but infinitely better information was available to the public as a whole. Even the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) had to admit that one of the principal values of getting extracts from the foreign Press was lost because they were buried in the Foreign Office instead of going to the public. In the last war we had no Chatham House, and, what was far more important then, there was a certain amount of freedom of the Press. There was issued to every Member of the House week by week a summary of the foreign Press, and there was an organisation at Cambridge, the title of which I forget, which supplied week by week in a cover of pale Cambridge blue extracts from the Press so that the public at large could know what the Press abroad were saying. Anything that Chatham House is doing to-day was done in the past by the Foreign Office and by this private- organisation at Cambridge, and that last cost the country nothing.
Here we are at the start of a war which will be an economic war more than anything else, and we are starting a Department of a semi-public character. I would sooner it were of an entirely public character. The country ought to

know the names of the people who are working at Chatham House and the salaries they are getting. [Hon. Members: "They do."] Is it published, as are the names of other Government servants? Is there any reason why they should not publish their extracts and the memoranda which are suitable for Press and public consumption? In the last war that was done for us by the Foreign Office and by private people. In this war we are having it done at great expense and it is much less necessary. The information is consigned to one Government Department and there is no co-ordination with the Ministry of Information which must depend for most of its propaganda upon extracts from the foreign Press. Anyone who had anything to do with propaganda in the last war knows that much the best instrument of propaganda is answering what is being said by the papers in the countries in which we want to carry on propaganda. We want principally to reply to statements in the foreign Press and that applies as well to neutral countries. Unfortunately, in this war it does not apply to enemy countries because there is no freedom of the Press there.
There are three reasons why I think we should have nothing to do with voting this money. The first is that this is a Government Department and should appear as such. The second is that the information is not supplied to the public but to only one Department, which I do not suppose spends much time in reading it. The third is because this is another case of a Department being evacuated at considerable expense and unnecessarily out of London when it ought to be carrying on its work at Chatham House. All who have seen anything of the work of Chatham House in peace-time are grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) for having started that institution. I hope that before the Debate ends he will tell us whether he contemplated the institution developing into two Government Departments, because, after all, Lord Lloyd has another Government Department budding off from Chatham House and also running at Government expense.
The essence of Chatham House as it was originally formed was to bring independent criticism to bear not only upon the Government in this country, but upon all Governments and, above all, upon


public opinion in this country. As long as it carried out that educational work it did very good service. Directly it was turned into a branch of the Secret Service, where vast plans are to be evolved as to how we ought to carry on the war, what the neutrals ought to do, and what should happen after the problematical victory; when it was turned into an organisation which is really doing the thinking part of the Government's duty, we got entirely away from the original Chatham House idea. We started a new Department which is not wanted, which is in the wrong place, and which is not supplying to the public what the public ought to have—the extracts from the foreign Press showing foreign opinion.

5.38 p.m.

Sir John Power: I willingly respond to the invitation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He is under considerable confusion of ideas as to Chatham House. It was founded practically at the last Peace Conference, and the duty it undertook was the examination in as scientific a manner as possible of all international questions. It later obtained a charter. It is absolutely prohibited from expressing any opinion or passing any resolution. Its work consists entirely of the examination of any problem that seems to be of sufficient interest and to publish the result of its examination. It expresses no feelings whatever, and I do not think that anyone has ever accused the Institute with reason of being anything but impartial to the last degree. Naturally we offend, sometimes the extreme Right and sometimes the extreme Left, but as long as we can get a balance of fifty-fifty we feel that we are keeping the correct course. We did not seek to do this work. We are an institution with 20 years' experience in collecting information and placing it at the disposal of not only our own members, but of any Member of Parliament who likes to apply for information, and he will receive it gratis. We have nothing to do with propaganda and are prohibited from touching anything of that kind.
We were asked to undertake this work because the authorities in their wisdom considered that we were the body best able to carry it out. Since this organisation, which we call a war-time organisation, was instituted it has been gone through most minutely. Every possible item of

avoidable expenditure has been cut out. We of Chatham House are filled with only one desire, and that is to do everything we can to help the country win the war. To that extent we have thrown in every penny that we could scrape from our funds to help to pay for the organisation. We instituted negotiations with the University of Oxford colleges and we persuaded them to undertake the expense of the organisation to the extent of £6,400. We are, therefore, saving the Government £12,400 per annum. In addition, all those who are connected with the Institute are throwing in such knowledge as they possess to make the organisation as perfect as may be. Naturally, we look upon that as a service to the country and we do not get any remuneration for it. In addition to the efforts to make the organisation as cheap as possible, we are giving to the organisation and the Government the benefit of our library, our Press cuttings department and our information department, which have been built up over 20 years. As regards the suggestions about the memoranda and smothering Ministers with voluminous documents, we do not do anything of the kind.
We only get out memoranda when we are asked by a Department to give them the Latest and best information on any particular aspect of their work. I presume they do not ask for it if they do not intend to read it. With regard to the necessity for extracts from the foreign Press, there are some people who know everything and do not require to read. I have been concerned with international affairs for the best part of my life, and I have derived the greatest information and interest from reading the digests of the foreign Press when I can find the time to do it. I submit that no other organisation in the country is able to do the three things which we are doing. I consider that we are doing a great service to the country in undertaking this work and putting our funds into it. As for the criticism that this work was done for nothing in the last war, I should be surprised if it was done for ten times the amount then.

Sir S. Reed: How does my hon. Friend reconcile his statement that the work of Chatham House has been rigidly impartial with the survey of international affairs two years ago, which was made up of a biased and tendentious attack on the


policy of the Government and the Government of France and on the heads of this Government and the French Government?

Sir J. Power: Of course, when you are trying to carry out an impartial work you cannot satisfy everybody; you cannot satisfy the extreme Right or the extreme Left. At all events, there are many people who probably agreed with the view that was taken in the work to which my hon. Friend refers. In all our publications we are careful to print that the Institute takes no responsibility for individual opinions.

5.44 p.m.

Sir A. Knox: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I sincerely hope that this question will be pushed to a Division, and I shall have great pleasure in voting against the Vote. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) said that the Government approached Chatham House and asked them to organise this service for the war. Is that really true or is it only a rumour? I am under the impression that Chatham House wanted this organisation arranged so that they could have some reason for getting a large subsidy from the Government. The hon. Member said that this grant of £19,000 would be money well spent if it shortened the war by only 10 minutes, and with that Icordially agree, but it is our business as a House of Commons to find out whether this money is well spent or not. I consider that the work is largely duplicated. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to tell me the names of some—of only half-a-dozen, if he can remember them—of the memoranda which have been produced by Chatham House since they went to Balliol. Has he read them? How many has he had time to read? How many officials of the Foreign Office have had time to read them? The whole arrangement seems to be a most expensive one, and I think it would be possible, with a little trouble, to find a better object upon which this £35,000 for seven months could be spent. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that these memoranda should be made public to the House

of Commons. Why not? Or at any rate an extract from them. We all have a good many things to read, and probably would not have the time to read them all, but extracts from them might be made available in the Library, so that we could look at them to see whether the country was getting value for its money, because the whole thing looks to me as if this grant were made in order to keep these gentlemen for the duration of the war.

5.47 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I was not surprised to hear the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), they are exactly what I should expect, but I confess that I was surprised, like the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), by both the nature and the source of the other criticisms which have been made to-day on the work of Chatham House during the war. I do not often find myself in the position of defending Government arrangements against critics of their own party or other parties, but to-day I do find myself in that position. Some of the criticisms have taken the form of questions, and we all know that there can be hostile questions and friendly questions, just as there is hostile neutrality and friendly neutrality. When I heard some of the right hon. Gentleman's awkward questions I could not help feeling, though possibly it is an unworthy suspicion, that a certain amount of jealousy between rival universities comes in here. I look upon this subject from a purely common-sense point of view.
Take the situation which confronted the Government at the outbreak of war. They knew that in Chatham House was an organisation which, since its foundation soon after the end of the last war, had got together experts who were giving their whole lives to an intensified study of an objective and impartial character. Of course they had opinions on this side or that, and occasionally their opinions were seen, and occasionally they may have been too clearly seen in some of their publications; but I do not think that anyone will deny that the publications of Chatham House in the pre-war period showed impartiality. They had gathered together a considerable number of people who were real international experts, people who were making intensive and careful studies of this or that


country or this or that problem as affecting international relations. Then the war broke out. Whether the Government approached Chatham House or whether Chatham House approached the Government I do not care, but the Government found a way to make use of that body of experts. I regret that they have evacuated themselves to Oxford. They might have stayed and taken the chance of bombing with the rest of us, but they were evacuated to Oxford, and they gathered to them in Oxford a certain number of other people who were supplied to them by the University of Oxford and by other universities. There they engaged in making these digests of the foreign Press and in writing memoranda about various aspects of international affairs.
One question which was asked by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was whether the memoranda all had reference to immediate war problems, or were not some dealing with such questions as federal union and the settlement after the war. I do not know whether I was right in reading into his question the idea that he thought that was rather a waste of time if it was so, but if there is one thing which I hope Chatham House is doing it is that. By all means let Chatham House provide memoranda on the immediate problems of the war, but, after all, we hope that there will some day be a day after the war, and do we want a repetition of what happened after the last war? As a right hon. Member has said, we won the last war, but we did not win the peace. As many Government spokesmen have since admitted, that was partly, though not largely, because of the ad hocand too hasty deliberations of that time—they seemed long drawn out then. They proceeded at a period when passions still ran high and had not died down.
The studies made by the group of people who established themselves at Versailles or in the neighbourhood have often been described to us by some Members of the House who took part in them, and we all know that those discussions suffered greatly because they had to be undertaken at a time when passions had not had time to cool. If this body of experts, drawn from people of differing political views, are giving part of their time not to deciding what the peace settlement is to be—that is not

their business—but to collecting materials which will assist a judgment to be made upon the facts as to races, minorities, frontiers and all the other matters which affect a post-war settlement if it is to lead to a real peace, then I think it is work which is worth doing and worth paying for.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) suggested that the Government ought not to have accepted the services of—we all know whom he was getting at, that very distinguished internationalist who is at the head of a certain department of Chatham House. I refer to Arnold Toynbee. He was the author of the particular survey of which, I feel pretty sure, the hon. Member for Aylesbury was speaking. Is there a man in England who has brought an abler brain to bear on the big racial, philosophic and economic questions affecting international affairs? It has been the main work of his life. That kind of research ought to be going on through the war, so that the results can be available to us after the war.

Colonel Wedgwood: Why should they not be available at once?

Miss Rathbone: Some of them are available. I do not know how much is published, but I know that a great deal can be got by anybody. Obviously there may be facts, surmises and suggestions which it would not be desirable to publish at the present moment, but which should be available to Members of the Government and the Foreign Office. It has been suggested that the work should be done at the Foreign Office. By whom? By the pre-war staff or by additions to the staff? The Foreign Office has the ad hoc, the immediate, problems to deal with, and Heaven knows, there are enough of them, and can it turn itself into an academic research department such as we have in Chatham House? If they employ people for the purpose then those people, working in Whitehall in direct contact with the ordinary officials of Whitehall, could not be expected to observe the same objectivity. They would not have the libraries at their command which the other experts have at Balliol College and in the atmosphere of Chatham House.
I am not going to say that everything which Chatham House has produced is worth while producing, I have not seen most of it, but it seems to me that the


general lay-out of the whole thing and the use of the personnel of Chatham House is one of the really praiseworthy things the Government have done. We have seen enough of the creation of hasty ad hoc Ministries, flung together and often staffed partly through nepotism or through somebody recommending somebody else. Was it not better in this particular case to choose people who have made a lifelong study of the problems which they were asked to study?
If I am not out of order there is one other point I should like to make. I had rather hoped that on this Supplementary Estimate there would have been an opportunity for us to hear something about that other cognate department of Foreign Office work, propaganda in enemy and neutral countries. I understand that we could not be told a great deal about it, but I presume that it is done by a special staff at the Foreign Office, and it seems rather odd that there is no provision for—

The Chairman: The hon. Lady cannot pursue that topic.

Miss Rathbone: I only want to know whether later we shall have an opportunity of hearing something of that cognate branch dealing with propaganda.

5.55 p.m.

Commander King-Hall: I intervene to make one point perfectly clear. I had the honour of working on the staff of Chatham House for seven years, and on resigning from the staff I was elected a councillor. I should perhaps explain for the benefit of Members of the Committee that being a member of the Council of Chatham House is a purely honorary position even in war-time. There seem to be some Members of this Committee who are under the impression that the Council of Chatham House have in some way or other come to an arrangement with the Foreign Office the real purpose of which is to float Chatham House off the rocks of bankruptcy on to the bounty of the Treasury during the war. I think one can absolutely deny that any such thought has ever been in the minds of the Council; it is a misapprehension which I have noticed in the Press. The position was perfectly simple. The Council of Chatham House, very properly we thought, in the days when war

appeared to be imminent, went to His Majesty's Government and asked them to say whether in their judgment the Royal Institute could be of any service to the nation, and it was the decision of the Government that the organisation of Chatham House, with its specialised staff, could do certain work for the Government which could not be done by anyone else. The Council of Chatham House then, again rightly, I think, decided that in the circumstances the institution must be placed unreservedly at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. Naturally there were conversations on the subject of what the expenses would be—Chatham House had no secrets as to the salaries it paid its staff—and the whole thing was turned over to work for the Government.
Shortly afterwards His Majesty's Government, wishing naturally to economise as much as possible, pointed out to the Council of Chatham House that the first figure agreed upon was a little large and asked whether anything could be done to reduce it. The Council did its utmost to meet this point and the position is that the Council is definitely subsidising this work to the extent of £6,000 a year. There are members of the Council of Chatham House who view with some apprehension this drain on the funds of Chatham House, and on the Council we ask ourselves very seriously whether we were really entitled to agree to this drain. We felt that in the interest of winning the war, as the Government had declared that they needed the work, we ought to take the risk and accept the situation, and that is the position so far as the Council of Chatham House is concerned. That is the only point which I wished to make, and which I hope I have made, namely, that there is no suggestion of Chatham House trying to float itself off on to the Government, but that at the moment it is partly subsidising the work which is being done.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Probably most hon. Members will agree that Chatham House took the only possible course and the right course in volunteering its services to the Government directly the war began. That point must be in our minds in this connection. I do not know that I need congratulate the Government upon the support which they received from the hon. Lady who represents the English


Universities (Miss Rathbone). It has always been rather a problem to me that people should urge that certain other people, secluded and sitting away, can form cooler judgments during war than when the war is over and it is all done. I will not pursue that point, but it hardly seems to be a possibility.
I would like to ask the Government questions on two points. The first is, is it not possible that this body, who are probably doing very valuable work, should make available to Members of this House some evidence, in the form of a précis? A very considerable amount of money was paid for this kind of thing and I believe many hon. Members would very much like to have the information. Most of us realise that we have a very deep responsibility, not only during the war, but in regard to the future, and that is why I think we should like an opportunity of realising the help which Chatham House might be to this House.
The second point is that, as an ordinary Member of Parliament, I am not quite happy whether, not merely on this Vote, this organisation overlaps with some other form of organisation for gathering, collecting and sorting information. I certainly should not oppose the Vote at the present time because I do not think it would be wise to do so, but we might have an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State in his reply that there is the most careful Government co-ordination in the Foreign Office to cut off superfluities—not that this is a superfluity, necessarily—and to see that we have not too many institutions of this kind.
They were hurriedly got up at the beginning of the war and may overlap. The Government have now passed the preliminary months of the war, and they should go into the whole matter of financing and be quite sure that the co-ordination of the various forms of information and the gathering of it should be looked after very much more closely in the next part of the war than has been the case during the last few months. I put this point purely from a House of Commons point of view, and if my questions can be answered the answers will be very valuable to the House of Commons as a whole.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I was absent from the Committee when the discussion upon

this Vote commenced, but I confess that I have been converted in part—but in part only—by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). Anybody who listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) will be in complete agreement that the work of Chatham House in the past has been, as it is at the present moment, most valuable; but I find myself faced with the fact that Chatham House has now removed itself appropriately—dare I say?—to the more intellectual atmosphere of Oxford where, I am sure, it will be singularly comfortable and at home. I approach the problem from one point of view only, which is, is this Vote right from an economic point of view? Are we justified in voting the large sum of £35,000 because of the distinguished activities of Chatham House?
The hon. Lady, who commended the work of Chatham House, said that a large number of experts had attached themselves to it since it went to Oxford, and she quoted one name which anybody who takes any interest in sociological problems must recognise. He must ask whether the country can afford to dispense with those services, and I say "Certainly not"; but when I saw the list of names which came out in the Press just after Chatham House was formed I was amazed. I am a Cambridge man. I saw that a large number of Oxford Dons, some of whom were engaged in professorial duties, were taking their part in that work. I asked myself: Surely this is a case in which gentlemen of great distinction, and living in the cultural atmosphere of Oxford, can give, not only of their specialised knowledge in these matters, but also of their most valuable spare time which, everybody will agree who knows about professorial duties, is now reduced to a minimum in all these colleges at the present time? Is it not possible for these gentlemen to assist the country on not quite such a singularly remunerative basis?
I should like to be satisfied. We are passing a Vote not for the support of Chatham House and of the permanent officials there—who in every case are most worthy—but for increasing the salaries of gentlemen at Oxford who previously had nothing to do with Chatham


House at all, and who now in many cases—I do not say all—give on a less generous basis their very valuable services to Chatham House and to the country.

Mr. Butler: Mr. Butler rose—

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry that I have to stand in the way of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but because I have listened to the Debate I want to call attention to the matter from the working-class point of view and from the point of view from which I view foreign affairs at the moment. From what has been said by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, Chatham House has rendered valuable service to this country. As I understand the matter those services are in advising the Government and keeping them posted upon the situation abroad. In all my experience of this House, if ever there has been a Government that let the country down in foreign affairs it is the present Government; and yet they have had this valuable assistance which we ordinary Socialists have not had an opportunity of enjoying. Nevertheless, all along the line we have foretold what was going to happen to this country if it proceeded on the lines to which we were directing attention. To-day we are landed in a war; this is the valuable assistance that Chatham House has rendered to the country.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I ought to point out to the hon. Member that although hon. Members can call attention to the valuable work of Chatham House it is not in order to discuss the further action of the Government.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely I am within my rights in drawing attention to what has happened as a result of that valuable assistance—but I will not pursue that point. Enough for the moment is the evil thereof. It is a very terrible thing that I have said and I hope the Committee will pay attention to it and weigh it up. I see that on page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate it says that expenditure out of this grant in aid will not be accounted for in detail. That is to say that the individuals who fraternise with the Chatham House fraternity do not require any

details of expenditure to be given. It is only when we come to the working class that you require a means test. The document goes on to say:
Any balance"—
think of this—
of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March, 1940, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer.
Is the Committee going to stand for that? The Exchequer is asked to grant to this Chatham House £35,000. Of course, that is not very much when you say it quickly, and if you are living among men some of whom are drawing £35,000 a year; but it is a different matter when we have to go to our constituencies and answer questions about the means test which is being applied to the people. Here is an institution which takes £35,000 and in the event of the money being not all required, or of the organisation being unable to spend that grant which it gets from the Exchequer, the Exchequer is not to look for money being paid back. Who are they, that they should be in that unique position?
This is just a case of the ruling class of this country treating these benches with absolute contempt. Unless we get a satisfactory answer we ought to oppose the individuals who are putting forward this application for £35,000 and who have rendered such valuable service. This is the institution that has been responsible for informing the present Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) before him, as well as all the other Foreign Secretaries whom we have had here and who have made such a mess of the business. They come forward and ask us Socialists to support the idea of granting them £35,000 to continue their good work of leading the Government of this country astray. I am opposed to it.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to detain the Committee for a few minutes longer, but I want to ask one or two questions on points of fact about the foreign Press digest. First of all, about its form. It has been suggested that we might have laid before us some sort of synopsis of it. If the thing is printed, is there any reason why we should not have complete copies


of it before us? I ask the question because in 1918 I had as much as anybody to do with this thing, not in producing it but in using it. I certainly should think, if it is being produced in the form it was a month or two ago, on cyclostyled sheets, it is of very little use. The people who have to use it want to be able to look at a good deal of it very quickly, and if one has to turn over an enormous number of sheets in order to see what comes out of a small number of German newspapers it is of very little use. Therefore I would ask if the report of the foreign Press is being printed; if not, whether it is going to be printed, and if it is printed whether we should not have copies in the House of Commons? Then, further, with regard to the speed with which this Press digest is produced, we learned from the last war that the speed with which one can see these things is by far the most important feature of the question, and a very bad synopsis of the foreign Press which is obtainable quickly is of more use than a good one which can only be gathered slowly.
I wish to ask another question: what other offices are doing precisely the same work? It is a misunderstanding to suppose, as was suggested by one or two other speakers, that during the last war nothing was done with regard to the preliminary studies of the Peace Conference. A good deal was done, for instance, under the direction of Dr. Headlam Morley. If what was done did not have a beneficial effect on the Peace Conference that was partly no doubt because it was not done so well as it should have been, and partly because the politicians did not read it. As the work on the foreign Press was being done, it was being done with a great deal of overlapping. I should like to know whether the military intelligence sections of the War Office are not finding it necessary to get this kind of work done. I have no doubt that money should be spent on doing the work, but I doubt whether it is worth doing it at Oxford if it is being done in the Air Force, the Foreign Office and, for all I know, in other Ministries.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I will do my best to answer the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members. The best preface to my remarks will be if I say that it is the wish of the Government to take into con-

sideration the points of view of the Committee, and I will give an undertaking that everything that has been said here to-day by way of criticism will be examined to see that any new arrangements which will be made will be as satisfactory as possible. I would like to say emphatically that I welcome the speeches of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), because I am sure they have put the position of Chatham House fairly. If there is criticism I should like it directed against the Government; we are ready to take the responsibility. The work of Chatham House has been of an entirely patriotic description; it has been of a high quality, and, as I said in my opening remarks, it has been of definite value to the Government and I am convinced it will be so in the future.
Taking some of the detailed points mentioned, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) asked about the type of memoranda produced. I should like to kill the idea straight away that we are contemplating producing at Oxford in remote seclusion a perfect academic peace plan. That is not the object of the Chatham House foundation at all. The object is that in these memoranda no subject should be excluded, but that we expect the organisation to place at the disposal of those who conduct the country's policy detailed knowledge of the political and economic conditions of the many countries with which they deal. I was asked how many of these memoranda I have read myself, how many have been produced, the exact contents of the memoranda and why we cannot publish them in detail.
The difficulty in conducting a country's foreign policy is that it is impossible to publish intimate confidential memoranda. It is impossible to conduct a country's policy, particularly in war-time, if everything is to be made public, because use may be made of it abroad, at any rate, if not in this country. Therefore, I can only describe them, as I have described them, in general terms. I would like to remind the Committee that they are used, not only by the Foreign Office, in which case they cover problems in connection with foreign countries and provide us with knowledge of conditions in those countries, but they are used also by the Ministry for Economic Warfare, for


example, and they have proved invaluable to that Ministry as well as to the Colonial Office and other Government Departments. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked for a rough idea of the number employed. The number of those employed on the staff is 65, with a suitable accompaniment of clerical assistants.
A subject has been raised with which I should like to deal straight away, and that is the question of the salaries of the professors employed at Chatham House. I think there has been a distinct misunderstanding by the hon. Members who mentioned this matter, in particular by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie). It is unfair to the professors who are doing good work at the present time. He cannot have been aware of the true facts; otherwise he would not have made the statement he did. He said many of them were increasing their salaries unjustifiably in this time of national difficulty. What is in fact happening is that at least eight of those whose names are included in the list which was laid before the House on 21st November are having their salaries paid not at an increased rate to what they were getting before, but they are being paid by the University of Oxford itself. These sums are not being paid by the taxpayers; these Oxford professors are receiving a sum approximate to what they received before for their services in the national interest.

Mr. Goldie: Would the right hon. Member forgive me? I am afraid that I must have expressed myself rather carelessly. Of course, I regret if I said anything which is not strictly accurate.

Mr. Butler: I am sure the Committee will accept the hon. Member's remarks. That is why I said that I thought he could not have been fully informed of the position. Without quoting his name, I should like to mention one of the gentlemen, a professor who gave up a salary of over one and a half times as much as he is getting now in order to come and work for the figure which I gave in the list to the House on 21st November. That is an example of the spirit of some of those who have offered their services.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) said that there was an atmosphere of mystery. I should have thought

that there was the very reverse of mystery. I should have thought that the position was quite clear. In my opening remarks to-day I attempted to define the relationship between Chatham House and the Foreign Office and to give some idea of the work they do. There has been some anxiety lest there should not be co-operation between the Government Departments engaged in this particular type of work. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked that there should not be any overlapping. I can assure him that this will be further investigated in the light of criticism made to-day. I have said that we wish to avoid overlapping and I consider that in the arrangements made, overlapping between the Foreign Office and Chatham House will be avoided; the question of overlapping between Chatham House and other Government Departments will also receive consideration.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and by the hon. Member for Cambridge University whether some of the productions of Chatham House cannot be made available to the Members so that a proper examination of its work can be made. I am going to make the following suggestion to the Committee. It is that we should make available as soon as possible the German Press Review and place it in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may examine it. This would not exclude consideration of the précis to which I think the hon.Member referred. I should like to give further consideration to that as well. The hon. Member for Cambridge University asked how the Press Review was produced, whether it was printed or on cyclo-style sheets. He said that cyclo-style sheets were difficult to turn over quickly. I would remind the hon. Member that the work of Chatham House is of such value that I trust that when he reads the German Press Review he will read it slowly and diligently. I cannot undertake to say that the Press Review will be printed, because we must have regard for economy. Therefore, I cannot undertake that any extra money will be spent in printing the Press Review unless it is found by the Committee when they read the Press Review that it is difficult to read in its present form, in which case this matter will receive consideration.

Colonel Wedgwood: Could we not have a similar system to the one which was used in the last war, when there was a weekly précis of the foreign Press issued to Members and for public use?

Mr. Butler: I would like to give the question of précis further consideration and I undertake to tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the result of my deliberations on that matter when I have had an opportunity of considering the question. That covers most of the points raised in the course of this interesting Debate. I should like to assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that we desire to consider carefully the points which he has raised, but we are in some confusion. At one moment we are told that Chatham House has been very critical of Government policy in the past and that therefore we are moved by charity in accepting their services in the war. At another moment he says—I think, unjustly to Chatham House—that it is due to them that we are in the present difficulty. I think the truth lies, as the apologists for Chatham House have said, somewhere between those two extremes. I trust that the hon. Member will be patient, and that he will reflect that we are fortunate to have available the services of those people, some of whom have criticised our policy in the past and others who have supported it, but who are one and all, I believe, men and women of character, experience and intellectual ability, and whose experience and character and ability are now at the disposal of the Government in this difficult time.

Mr. Kirkwood: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for replying to my first question, I would ask him to answer my last question, with regard to the statement here that any bonds which remain unexpended on 31st August, 1940, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer.

Mr. Butler: I too was very alarmed when I examined this Vote, but I reflected that this is the language used in all cases when a grant-in-aid is sought. If the hon. Member will examine some of the other grants-in-aid in the Book of Estimates he will find that similar language is used. But, apart from the technical question of the language used, may I point out that I gave an under-

taking in my opening remarks that due regard will be had to economy? I can assure the hon. Member that money will not be wasted. If there is a tendency for money to be wasted, the matter will be examined by the Treasury and the Foreign Office, and due arrangements will be made to avoid waste.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £55,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and a grant in aid of the Royal Institute of International Affairs."

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £127,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry services arising out of the war."

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: This Supplementary Estimate, I understand, is arrived at in this way. There is, first, a number of items of extra expenditure, but as against that there is a number of savings. The extra amount required is £298,500, the particulars of which are set out on page 8 of the White Paper, and as against that there is a sum of £171,000 saved, so that the net amount which the Government now require is £127,500. I want to refer to one of the two items on page 9, setting out the amounts saved.

The Deputy-Chairman: The savings cannot be discussed under this Vote. We can discuss only the amounts asked for.

Mr. Silverman: I merely wanted to ask how the original sum was expended so as to show a saving so very large in respect of the amount for which the Government originally asked. I submit that that would not, in the practice of this House, be deemed to be out of order. It seems to me that the Government ought to explain how, in view of the known facts,


they were able to save, under sub-head QQ, the sum of £7,500 out of their agreed contribution to the expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers in Spain. It seems to me that that saving arises only because of the maladministration of the sum which was granted.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is again discussing savings. I told him that he could not discuss savings.

Mr. Silverman: It is not so much a question of discussing savings, but surely we are entitled to know how the saving was arrived at when we are invited to vote an extra sum which is calculated with express reference to that saving. I should have thought, subject to your Ruling, that that was an unexceptionable proposition. There is, on the other side, under:
Expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British volunteers from Spain,
the sum of £500. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Government's work cannot properly be done either by saving £171,000 on the original Estimate, or by saving £500 now. There was in the International Brigade in Spain a large number of people who, in the opinion of many Members of this House, in the opinion of more Members now than once held that view, were doing in advance and by themselves what the rest of us have been, by the dire logic of events, compelled to do at a later stage.
It seems to me that the Government, in limiting their expenditure in this way, are neglecting the responsibility of this country to those men, who, in many cases, left their domiciles in this country in order to go to Spain and fight in support of the Spanish Government while that was still possible, and then, when the Spanish Government's heroic resistance finally collapsed, came over the French border, where they are now a very serious charge on the funds of our Ally, the French Government. Our Government are not doing their duty, either towards those men or in relieving the French Government of what ought to be a joint and not a several responsibility. I want to refer to two specific cases. One is the case of Dr. Friedrich Wolff. That sounds an unfamiliar name, but if I refer to him as the author of a play the film version of which—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is quite out of Order. Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member will be aware, ruled this matter out of Order before. Also, this Vote applies only to British subjects repatriated from Spain, and therefore the hon. Member cannot raise the question of a non-British subject. Further, I think the hon. Member is making a complaint with regard to the treatment of an individual by the Government of another country.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect to you, Sir, I have not said a single word of complaint with regard to the Government of any other country; and I do not propose to do so. I think the time of this Committee will be adequately occupied if it devotes itself to complaining of the many acts of omission and commission of our own Government, without seeking to refer to other Governments, over which we have no control. I have no intention of making any such reference. But, if I understood the Speaker aright, he ruled the other night that what I then proposed to do—which was not what I now propose to do—would have been out of Order, not on this occasion, but on that occasion, on the Adjournment. I think there is a great difference between discussing a thing on the Adjournment and discussing on such an occasion as this whether the Government are right in what they have done. I think it is the duty of the Committee, when we are asked to provide funds, to inquire how those funds are spent, why they are required, and to go into any other matters in relation to that.
All I am proposing to do is to take two individual instances, not on their own merits, not in order to criticise other people, but merely in order to make the point which I would like to make, if it is in order, that our own Government have not expended the money which they asked the House to provide, and which the House did provide for the purpose for which the Government asked. I am giving these instances as reasons why the money now asked for should not be granted. I repeat that the man whose name I gave will be better known to Members of the Committee as the author of a now very well known film play, which is one of the most powerful of all vehicles of literary or dramatic propaganda in support of the Allied cause. I want to read his own letter to his own


friends, because I think that letter speaks for itself.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member whether this is a British subject.

Mr. Silverman: I have no idea whether he is a British subject now or not.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then it is quite out of Order.

Mr. Silverman: I will, of course, submit to your guidance on the matter; but I see nothing on either of the items to which I drew your attention to indicate that the persons affected must all be British subjects.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the heading of "YY":
Expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British volunteers from Spain.

Mr. Silverman: I read that before I ventured to address the Committee. I do not think that "British volunteers"need necessarily mean anything more than volunteers from Britain.

The Deputy-Chairman: I rule that it does mean British subjects.

Mr. Silverman: With regard to the other item, on page 9, there is absolutely nothing to support the suggestion that only Britishers are concerned. May I suggest that, in fact, certainly not all the money that the Government spent was spent on British subjects? The money was not voted to be spent exclusively on British subjects, and was not, in fact, spent exclusively on British subjects.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I submit that some of these men who were sent from Spain went to camps in France in which was a number of people belonging to other nationalities? At the time when they were repatriated, the British Government, of course, spent money in the same camps which included nationals of other countries. To the extent that the British Government economised in that expenditure, that economy would necessarily have to be made up by the other Governments responsible for those camps. Would it not be in order to suggest that the economy was unnecessarily made, and was a consequence of the Government not discharging their

own duty, therefore throwing an unnecessary burden on their partners?

The Deputy-Chairman: That involves a far larger question, which could not be raised on this Vote.

Mr. Bevan: But if the Government have taken money from the House in order to do a job, and then save money by not doing the job, is it not appropriate to call attention to their dereliction of duty?

The Deputy-Chairman: Unfortunately, savings cannot be discussed.

Mr. Bevan: I know that there are always difficulties on these occasions, but if the Government have been given money in order to save a man's life, and then they say, "We did not spend the money because we allowed the man to die," are we not allowed to discuss that? It seems to me an extraordinary position that the Government are given the power to spend money, and do not spend it on the job for which it was voted, and by not spending it throw an expenditure upon another country which is an Ally. The hon. Member is attempting to point out that the Government have cheated the House by not spending the money.

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be an appropriate matter for discussion on some other occasion, but not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that at the moment I cannot grasp the full import of the Ruling which has been given. Surely the Government set out in this Paper the sum which they require, and they explain why that sum is required. It must have some relation to the moneys which have so far been spent upon cognate purposes. The Government themselves come forward and say, "We have had so much money to spend on a particular Vote, and we have not spent it."They call it a saving. I do not call it a saving, and it may be a matter of debate whether it be a saving or not. All money that is not spent is not necessarily money saved. You may waste money by not spending it. It may well be that the objects which this House had in mind when it voted the original grant were objects the House would rather have than see the money in the coffers of the Treasury. Therefore, when the Government say, if they are


saying here, "We did not spend the money that was necessary," are they entitled to call that saving, and is not the House entitled to inquire, when the Government claim credit for that in arriving at the present figure, how they explain the failure to carry out the objects for which the original money was voted? If they are able to explain that all the objects for which the money was originally granted have been served, and that this money is mere surplus age, I agree that that surplus age cannot be debated. I am arguing that this is not surplus age, but money which remains in the hands of the Government to carry out a purpose which the House authorised them to carry out, and which they have not carried out. If this is not the occasion upon which this dereliction of public duty is to be debated, then I can think of no other occasion.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that this is not the occasion upon which this matter can be debated. On this Supplementary Estimate, one cannot discuss page 9 of the Estimate. If the hon. Member persists, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Silverman: I am not going to put myself in the position of placing you in any difficulty, but it is a matter of some importance. I am not raising it idly or without a full sense of responsibility, and I say to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, with all the sincerity that I can, that this is a matter upon which not only I myself, but a great many other people, feel the greatest possible anxiety, and we have sought, with what little skill and knowledge we have, for the appropriate occasion upon which the matter might be raised. We found this one. The Government have set out these particulars here, and have invited the House to vote a sum of money in respect of this item. This seemed to be, in our innocence, the appropriate occasion, but if it be not, what possible occasion can there be when this matter can be raised? Once this item is disposed of, the saving is sanctioned by the Committee and can never again arise. I submit with all respect that this is not an occasion when the narrowest possible interpretation of the Rule is the wiser method to adopt.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is my duty to see that the Rules of the House are

enforced, and I have no option but to rule the discussion entirely out of Order. As to the appropriate occasion upon which the hon. Member can raise it, I think he will probably be able to find out for himself, and I cannot advise him.

6.49 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I propose to deal with
W.W.r.—Relief of Distress among Polish Refugees in Neutral Countries (including Rumania and Hungary) £100,000.
I think that £100,000 is quite inadequate. We follow that up with £133,000, relief of distress caused by the earthquake in Turkey, to which the House agreed as being quite reasonable. But we were not in any sense responsible for the terrible destruction and loss of life in Turkey, whereas, whatever view we take of the late Polish Government, we were in a sense, to some degree, responsible for the awful fate of the inhabitants of Poland. It was, therefore, very incumbent upon us to do the utmost that was within our power to assist the fleeing population from Poland. We did far more in the case of Czecho-Slovakia, and the disaster was infinitely greater in Poland than it was in Czecho-Slovakia. People do not realise what the horrors of modern warfare as carried out by the German Government really are. It is impossible for a great many people to live any longer in their own country. Those who have stopped behind have been mercilessly and barbarously executed, murdered, or starved to death. Those who were lucky enough have fled with no possessions except what they stood up in, and if it had not been that we in this country have become hardened to the horrors, I am certain that we should have made a larger provision than we have done for the refugees from Poland. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary, in connection with the administration of this fund, Who is handling it, for what purpose is it being used, for whom is it being used, how much of it in Rumania and how much in Hungary? Those countries are the principal receptacles of the refugees.
The Committee ought to realise that at least three-quarters of these refugees, though all Poles, are Polish Jews who, unfortunately, for the last eight years, have fled from Poland and from Germany particularly to Hungary and Rumania. The idea spreads that the Jews are not


quite human beings, that they are not to be treated on all fours with full citizens, and that their being refugees is not as serious a matter as a full-blooded Czech or Pole being a refugee. We have, unfortunately, all over the world, been infected more or less by this doctrine of the non-humanity of the Jews. Therefore, it is very important that we should know here, in this Committee which makes no distinction whatever between one refugee and another, that these funds are being administered according to needs and not according to the particular creed or race. If the Under-Secretary can give us any information on these points, it will be extremely welcome. I would remind the Committee that German propaganda, penetration and influence in all the countries bordering upon Germany, and particularly now in Hungary and Rumania, is stimulating the persecution of the Jews. These border countries living under the fear of Germany, anxious to please the Germans and to do anything to avoid invasion, are deliberately carrying out an anti-Semitic policy which shall be agreeable to the Nazis.
The Jewish population is very large in Rumania and is becoming very large in Hungary. The Jews in Hungary to-day are automatically excluded from the ordinary occupations of the Hungarian citizens, and from most in Rumania. I do not want it to be thought that our administration of relief makes any distinction, and I hope that we are not using, in this relief, the machinery of the Governments of Rumania or of Hungary, because that machinery would be used not as the House intended or as it intends the money to be used. Recently Hungary has annexed a very large Jewish population in what used to be called Carpathian Russia, which is at the tail end of Czecho-Slovakia towards the East. That was all Hungarian before and it has become Hungarian again, and I am told that the Hungarians are doing everything possible to acquire the affection and respect of the Ruthenian population of that district. Starvation is rampant, the conditions are terrible, and they are giving to the Ruthenian peasant children free rations of milk. The Jews who are starving among the Ruthenians, and who are very nearly equal in numbers to the Ruthenians, are given nothing at all. Many of these are Jews who have lived there

through the centuries, and others are refugees who came from Poland. The condition of these people is far worse than anything that is going on anywhere else in the world, except in the Lublin Enclave, where the Jews are being deliberately starved to death. Obviously we ought to be very careful that, where the distress is greatest, there should be the principal expenditure of money. I am confident that the distress among the Jewish emigrants from Poland—and that is three-quarters of the whole—is far greater in Carpathian Russia, and in the rest of Hungary among the refugees there, than it is even in Rumania, because in Rumania there is a far larger and richer Jewish population resident and long-established.
When we are considering what we can do for these refugees we must remember that we are even more directly responsible for some of these refugees. Frozen in the Danube to-day are several boats loaded up with Jewish refugees who have escaped, some from Czecho-Slovakia, and some from Poland, obviously trying to get to some country where they will be allowed to live. They have applied for permission to enter Rumania by these steamers. They cannot yet because the rivers are frozen up, and they cannot ever get into Rumania as long as the Under-Secretary and the Foreign Office in Great Britain refuse to allow them to get visas to permit them to go into Rumania. They are afraid that if they get into Rumania, they will go to Palestine, and because of that they are not allowed into Rumania, and therefore 4,000 refugees are being starved from hunger and cold in the Danube to-day without any chance of getting food from the people in the country in which they are.

Sir Patrick Hannon: How can the Foreign Office intervene in this particular case?

Colonel Wedgwood: Our Foreign Office are responsible in this way, that they have induced the Rumanian Government to refuse to allow the Jews to go into Rumania because from Rumania they can get a ship to Palestine, and Jewish migration into Palestine is illegal. So that we are responsible really for the destruction of these 4,000 refugees. Any of the assistance that we give in this Vote


to refugees in Hungary and in Rumania ought to go equally to the refugees who are stranded. For these reasons I think we ought to be careful, before we vote this money, to know who is administering it, how it is to be administered, and whether it is going fairly to all classes of refugees. I view with great suspicion now any money being distributed for refugees through the administration of our own Foreign Office officials in those countries. It is inevitable, if one lives in those countries for a long time, that one takes from the people among whom one lives the attitude of their country towards Jews, and the questions which are agitating that country.
It is so easy to lose the English attitude, and I am afraid that in many of our Embassies, and some of our Consulates, you have, towards the persecution of the Jews, an attitude which would not have been thought of 10 years ago. It has slowly grown up, and I think it does need the Foreign Office and the voice of this House to tell our men and women abroad that they are disloyal to this country if they adopt towards Jews or democracy only an attitude which makes them agreeable to the people among whom they live. Such an attitude is diametrically opposite to the wishes of the people, and the traditions of this country, and I hope we shall have, not only full information from the right hon. Gentleman, but also a careful distribution of this money and a better attitude towards these problems. We are righting a great war for decent humane rules of God and humanity, and we will not be either directly or indirectly partners in the vices of humanity by which the German Government measure out their hatred to the Jewish people.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked a number of important questions which, I am sure, the Under-Secretary will think it his duty to answer in a moment. The point that I want to press upon the Under-Secretary is this: I think that this is a miserably inadequate contribution to a great cause which has a claim to our moral and material aid. These people are our Allies in this war. The Polish army took the first blow which otherwise would have been struck at France and ourselves, and they are suffering from causes which

are not attributable to anything for which these unhappy refugees may be responsible. I would like to think that we value their services to humanity, and to us, at a higher figure than £100,000 and my principal purpose in rising is to urge the Under-Secretary to go back to the Foreign Office and take early steps to get an increased contribution for these people. That is nothing in conflict with what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said about the need for avoiding any discrimination in distribution. I will not say anything on that subject, but in so far as the total is concerned, I feel that it does not do justice to the debt of honour we owe to our momentarily defeated Polish allies.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but one or two things which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said made me feel that I should like to say, from personal knowledge of some of the workers of the Friends Service Council who are now working with the Polish Relief Committee in Rumania and Hungary, that the utmost effort is being made to see that there should be no discrimination about the relief that is given. They have paid a high tribute to the work that is being done by the Hungarian and Rumanian authorities for the refugees under their care, which involves a very heavy burden on those two countries. I believe that the help given by the British Government is being administered through the Polish Relief Committee and has been of immense value in supplementing the arrangements which have been made at short notice. The problem has been an extraordinarily difficult one to deal with and not quite of the character my right hon. and gallant Friend has pictured. A great number of the refugees are soldiers who fled over the frontier, and, of the civilians, a large number are minor Government officials, such as postmen and policemen, whose lives would have been endangered if they had remained in occupied Poland. There is no doubt that a certain number of Jews, but not a great number, have come out with this wave of refugees.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the hon. Member saying that the organisation through which he works is helping more Poles than Jews?

Mr. Harvey: The workers I have already alluded to make no difference as to race or nationality, and that, I am sure, is the object of the British Government. Funds that are being voted now will be spent in that way, and I hope that this £100,000 is not going to be the final Vote that our Government will give. No doubt at a later date, if the need continues, this Committee will be asked for a further sum of money. I feel it is due to the Foreign Office to give this explanation of what I believe to be the valuable service they are rendering to people who have suffered so cruelly and unjustly, and for whom Members on all sides have the utmost sympathy in their hour of need. I am extremely glad that this contribution is being made and am also glad that we are giving valuable help to the sufferers in Turkey. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will tell us that the sum given for Turkish relief will be given exclusively through the Anglo-Turkish Relief Committee or whether it will be given in part by a direct grant to the Turkish Government.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Butler: There is no question of measuring the help which we desire to give to the Poles who have suffered from the terrible tragedies of the last few months by reference to this sum of £100,000. The whole of the resources of the British Empire are involved in this war to redress some of the wrongs that have been committed and to vindicate the cause for which we are fighting together with our Polish Allies. This sum of £100,000 was provided for a specific purpose—to meet the cost of urgently-needed clothing and medical supplies. It was provided with the shortest possible delay in order to help Polish refugees who were in an extremely serious condition in Hungary and Rumania, and to a certain extent in Lithuania. I am able to say now that, thanks to what I think we can safely say has been efficient administrations, these requirements have been, in the initial stages at any rate, substantially satisfied. Considering the urgency of the need and the fact that this winter the temperature has been very low in those regions, the position is comparatively satisfactory to the extent that the first urgent need is being met.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked who is

handling this fund. The sum of £5,000 was paid in money as a grant-in-aid, and the remainder of the fund is being, or has been, transferred to the districts and to the needy in the form of goods which have been provided by the Polish Relief Fund. The President of the Polish Relief Fund is His Excellency the Polish Ambassador, whose fortitude and courage we have all come to admire during recent months, and the fund is being administered by Lord Moyne, who has shown his usual drive and efficiency in this matter. I should like also to thank Sir Francis Humphrys for the work he has done and which I described to the House in answer to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 17th October last. The Polish Relief Fund is administering this sum of money in conjunction with the Friends Service Council and the Society of Friends. As for the reception of the goods, in Budapest and Bucharest there are representatives of the Polish Relief Fund, and we are working in collaboration with the Hungarian and Rumanian Red Cross.

Colonel Wedgwood: Am I to understand that this is for the Poles only, and not for the Jewish refugees, and are Jews not represented on the Polish Refugees Committee?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me when I said it is being used for the needy. Need is the criterion, not creed.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are needy Jews included?

Mr. Butler: Certainly, needy Jews are benefiting from the fund.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask whether in the definition of Pole any regard whatever is paid to race or creed? Is not every Polish subject included in that?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that, in view of the urgency of some of these cases, the representatives who are handling the money do not stop to inquire of needy human beings their particular point of view. The Hungarian and Rumanian Red Cross are assisting in the administration of the fund and very considerable grants, particularly in the form of commodities, clothing and medicaments, are being made by the American Red Cross, the Young Men's Christian Association, and the Norwegian


Red Cross. As for the efforts of the Polish Relief Fund in this country, remarkable success has been achieved in obtaining almost immediately, over the last few winter months, good warm clothes, particularly overcoats, tunics and trousers. In this connection I should like to thank the Office of Works and the Glasgow Transport Board, who produced at exceedingly short notice, some very valuable warm clothes which they happened to have available. Those clothes were urgently necessary because the condition of those who crossed the frontier was deplorable in the extreme.
Besides the provision of ready-made clothes, many of them second-hand clothes purchased at low prices, the Central Hospital Services Committee of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross and St. John of Jerusalem have been organising the help of voluntary workers all over the country. The task of making shirts, socks, and so forth, to send immediately to Hungary and Rumania in particular has been performed voluntarily, and I am glad to say that the manner in which the administration has been carried out has enabled these supplies to be sent immediately and to arrive with great expedition at the scene of difficulties. Perhaps the Committee would be interested to hear some details. Already, 45,566 yards of shirting material have gone to Rumania and about 33,000 yards to Hungary; 20,232 pullovers have gone to Hungary, all of them having been produced with the shortest delay by the Polish Relief Fund; boots, sleeping bags, boot-leather, tunics, waistcoats, overcoats, and so forth, have been sent as quickly as possible. Within the limits of the sum of money which we have been able to place at the disposal of those in need, the need has been met, and I can assure the Committee that the Government will continue to exercise a full sense of responsibility in aiding the victims of these terrible disasters.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) asked a question about the sum of £133,000 which is being put at the disposal of the Turkish authorities. We offered, in the first place, to send a hospital ship to help the Turks, but they preferred to have an immediate grant in cash and in the form of supplies. This offer was greatly

appreciated by the Turkish Government, who received from us, therefore, a preliminary sum in cash and also a sum from the French Government. Since then the Admiralty and the War Office have sent supplies which were immediately available to the extent of £21,000 from the Admiralty and £87,000 from the War Office. These supplies were immediately delivered, and a consignment of medical stores and blankets reached Turkey through the instrumentality of the Royal Navy within little more than a fortnight after Turkey had accepted. In this second instance oftragedy—this time a national calamity—we have shown a wish to give aid with as much speed as possible in order to show how much we sympathise with our Turkish friends in their sufferings from this severe earthquake. I would mention that Sir Wyndham Deedes and Professor Garstang are in Turkey in order to collaborate with the Turkish authorities, while the drive and energy of Lord Lloyd have been used in this country in order further to help the Turks in their grave difficulties.

Colonel Wedgwood: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would make one point clear before he concludes. The Committee is voting this money for all Polish subjects, whether they be Jews or Christians. The money is being distributed through a purely Polish organisation. Do the people who are receiving this money and who are spending it realise that the wish of the British people in voting it is that it should go impartially to any Polish citizens, and not be confined to Christians in any sense or way?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I gave a definite answer—which I have pleasure in repeating—to the effect that this money is given for suffering humanity regardless of creed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be satisfied that need is the criterion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £127,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry services arising out of the war."

CLASS I.

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, the additional salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a member of the Cabinet, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."

7.21 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I think it would only be courteous to the Committee if I explained the reasons for this new subhead (Salary of a Minister without Portfolio), which was not in the original Estimate. It is brought forward in accordance with precedent. The appointment of a Minister without Portfolio is an exercise of the Prerogative power of the Crown, and is not covered by the legislation passed by the House of Commons, either by the Ministers of the Crown Act, which gives authority for the usual offices, or in the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act. Therefore, it is in accordance with custom that it should be brought specifically to the notice of Parliament as soon as possible. Previous occasions on which such appointments have been made were not only during the last war, when there were the cases of Mr. Arthur Henderson, Lord Milner, and Sir Edward Carson, but more recently in 1935, when there was the appointment of Lord Eustace Percy. The rate of salary is £5,000 a year, and the sum asked for (£2,880) is the amount payable at this rate since the date of appointment, namely, 3rd September last.
The subject of the functions and duties of a Minister without Portfolio is one upon which it is in the nature of things difficult to expand, but I think hon. Members can gain some knowledge of the facts by reference to the Reports of the War Cabinet during the last war. One assumes that the purposes for which the present Prime Minister has appointed a Minister without Portfolio are not very different from those for which previous Prime Ministers appointed Ministers without Portfolio. I can best describe it in

the terms of a Report of the War Cabinet for the year 1917:
In practice, a considerable number of less important, but often highly complex questions are referred to individual Members of the War Cabinet or to committees of Ministers or others. In some cases the Minister or committee has power to decide, in others, the instruction is to carry out a detailed investigation such as the War Cabinet itself could not usefully undertake, and submit a report for final decision to the Cabinet. By this means the War Cabinet is enabled to carry out exhaustive investigations, without the whole of its members being over-burdened with the details of every question.
That shows the manner in which the detailed work of Members of the War Cabinet not holding Departmental responsibility was performed during the Great War. I am not in the secrets of the Cabinet any more than hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore I can only report what I am told on the subject, but to the best of my knowledge that is exactly the sort of way in which Lord Hankey's exceptional experience and qualifications are being utilised. That is to say, he is sometimes chairman, sometimes member of a committee, and he is continuously engaged in the investigation of special problems as they arise. Everyone agrees, I think, that an essential feature of the War Cabinet's organisation at present is that it should comprise a certain number of Ministers who are in a position to devote special attention to such problems. It is because the Prime Minister thought that the present Minister without Portfolio was in every way suitable and qualified by his great experience and knowledge that he invited him at the outset of the war to become a member of the War Cabinet. Because he cannot get a salary unless this Supplementary Estimate is agreed to by the House of Commons, I come forward to-day to submit it to the Committee.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do not know. Colonel Clifton Brown, how widely you will be prepared to allow this Debate to rove. Perhaps that should be ascertained by the method of trial and error, rather than by asking you for any definition now, but may I express the hope that you will permit me to begin by making one or two general observations which I think are not irrelevant to the subject?

The Deputy-Chairman: It might be well if, at the outset, I stated what are the Rules governing this Debate. I have no desire to limit the Debate unduly, but this is a somewhat complicated matter. To start with, hon. Members cannot criticise a Minister in his capacity as a Member of another place. They can only criticise him in his administrative capacity. Secondly, it would not be in order to turn this Debate, which refers to the appointment of one Minister without Portfolio, into a Debate on the War Cabinet as a whole and its general policy. Thirdly, Erskine May lays it down that in discussing such an appointment one cannot say whether or not a particular Minister should be in the Cabinet, or whether a Minister should be in this House or in another place. Those, I think, are three Rules which do rather tie up the Debate on this occasion, but I do not wish to be unhelpful, and I am prepared to allow hon. Members to discuss the subject as far as the Rules allow.

Mr. Dalton: You will agree, Colonel Clifton Brown, that this concerns a very interesting new appointment and that it would be a pity if the Committee were deprived of a reasonable opportunity for offering observations upon it, but I take note of your three Rules, and I shall endeavour to keep within them. At the same time, since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was permitted by you to draw certain analogies between the present War Cabinet and the War Cabinet of the last war, I hope it will be in order to observe that there are certain distinctions to be drawn. The reasons for the opposition which I shall offer to this grant of money and which is symbolised by the Amendment I have moved, might well be less strong if the present War Cabinet were constituted as was the War Cabinet which existed during the Great War, that is to say, if this War Cabinet consisted practically entirely of Ministers without Portfolio instead of being, as it is, a curious amalgam of departmental Ministers and Ministers who are without departmental duties. I shall not develop that point beyond saying that there seems to be a certain difference between the then War Cabinet and the present War Cabinet of which it is reasonable to take account.
There are some who hold—and it would be out of order to develop this argument

further than merely to state the proposition—that fundamentally this War Cabinet is wrongly constituted and that it is not a practicable or a wise operation to stick on, as it were, for the purpose of investigating a particular problem relating to military defence operations, the three Service Ministers, all in the War Cabinet, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, also in the War Cabinet, and then two Ministers without Portfolio, of whom Lord Hankey is one, with a roving commission which must necessarily conflict with and run across the services of their colleagues. That is one reason why we view with suspicion this additional appointment on grounds of principle. We say it is merely carrying further an illogical and confused arrangement which we regard as very much inferior, from the point of view of utility in the conduct of the War, to that adopted in the last Great War.
Further than this, it is surely not unreasonable to ask for what we are being invited to pay this money. In other words, what are the duties which Lord Hankey is being paid to perform? I did not find the right hon. Gentleman's explanations very lucid, and I hope later on he will be able to tell us a little more about what Lord Hankey does and how the duties relating to the conduct of the war are divided between the Ministers without Portfolio and the Ministers specifically in charge of war functions. We should have some assurance that the whole thing is not merely the confused muddle which on the face of it it may well become. For example, the other day we noticed that the two Ministers without Portfolio were despatched to France on a tour of investigation. It would be interesting to know whether it is expected that this kind of duty will frequently occur in future. If so, these two Ministers will, no doubt, be very fully informed and fully occupied in the necessity of checking up evidence in matters of dispute between their colleagues.
Passing from that, I should like to make a few observations regarding Lord Hankey's undoubtedly very high qualifications. He has had a long period of greatly distinguished public service. He was the man to whom, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), there occurred in the middle of


the last war the bright idea that notes might be taken and minutes made of Cabinet proceedings. Before that no notes had been taken of decisions, and there were no minutes of their proceedings. Lord Hankey and the right hon. Gentleman evolved this very new idea, which has since been followed continuously. I wish to do nothing other than pay tribute to Sir Maurice Hankey, as he then was, in all his earlier activities in the public service. There was a period during which he was Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence in addition to being Secretary to the Cabinet, during the whole period from 1931 until his final retirement, when grievous errors were made in British policy in matters of armaments and defence. He held his office during the fiasco of the Disarmament Conference. He was then a civil servant and not subject to criticism. He had a very long close season, but we are now entitled to say—and he is entitled to reply to us—thathe must take his share of responsibility for gross errors of policy when the Government were failing to co-operate in disarmament by agreement, and also in the later period when the Government were failing to rearm in the face of the German menace. We have the very greatest doubt of the competence of Lord Hankey to advise to-day on questions of defence. He has been responsible, in a very high and responsible position, for giving advice to Governments in respect of these mixed questions when a disastrous error was made, first in regard to disarmament and, secondly, in regard to rearmament. Therefore Lord Hankey does not command confidence among my hon. Friends, certainly not in me, nor, I think, in them.
Further than this, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said the Prime Minister thought he was in every way suitably qualified to hold the post. He is one of a series of persons who have been chosen to hold office in this Government from outside the ranks of the Government's habitual supporters. The Prime Minister is gradually surrounding himself with non-political functionaries. I will not run through all the names, but they are nearly enough to fill that bench. We are, therefore, finding that, although the Prime Minister thought Lord Hankey was in every way qualified for the post, he found it difficult to

find among his habitual supporters any person of equal qualifications. That is a matter which the Prime Minister and his supporters must fight out between themselves. It is not for us to intrude in these estimations of merit and demerit, but it is remarkable that the Prime Minister has had on this occasion, as on a great number of others lately, to pass by all the hundreds of honest, loyal, consistent, able, distinguished supporters who surround him in order to bring in persons from outside.
There are one or two other points on which I should like to put questions. Lord Hankey was in receipt of a pension for his long and honourable services to the State before he received this appointment. He had also been appointed a director of the Suez Canal, which is a form of pension not involving very long sojourns in the canal zone. I should be interested to know whether Lord Hankey is still receiving his pension, in addition to his salary, and also whether he is still receiving the emoluments of a director of the Suez Canal, or, if not—I suspect that the answer to the second question is in the negative—whether the post is being kept open for him, or whether it is intended to fill it while he is performing these onerous duties of Minister without Portfolio. In general it is objectionable that a person should draw both a pension and a salary, at any rate a full pension based on past services and a full salary based on a rate applicable to persons who are not pensioned.
My hon. and right hon. Friends have little confidence in the general make-up of the Government, and it would be an exaggeration to say that that confidence has been increased either by this particular appointment in itself or in the implied judgment of the Prime Minister upon the general body of those from whom normally he would be recruiting his assistants. I trust that Members who have served so long in the hard and dusty road of democratic politics will not be perpetually passed over when the Prime Minister is making appointments to posts whether with or without portfolio. It is curious that we should use this expression. I suppose it is an illustration of the Anglo-French alliance, which predated the war in many ways. Ministers here do not possess portfolios in the technical sense. When a Minister resigns in France he dramatically


throws his portfolio on the bench and leaves the Chamber. We do not do things in that way. But I do hope, when next a Minister is appointed, whether it is with or without portfolio, that he will be chosen from those who have struggled to get to this House and who have served the cause of their party, and that they will not be perpetually thrust aside, very unfairly, I think, by the Prime Minister.

7.42 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I found myself on the whole very much in agreement with the preamble of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in moving this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has often criticised the form and character of the Cabinet and advocated that the Members should be free from the responsibility of Departmental administration. In other words, the Cabinet should consist entirely of Ministers without portfolio. That principle having been accepted we take no exception to this example of a Minister able to concentrate on general policy without being worried or troubled with details and difficulties in the administration of a Department in war time. As to the suitability of the Minister in question I am afraid I must part company with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). I do not suppose there is anybody more trained by experience and with more qualifications in the art of carrying on war. Lord Hankey's experience dates back even before the last war. When Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence he served under all sorts of Governments—under a Liberal Government, a Coalition Government, a National Government, and even under a Labour Government. I believe I am right in saying that he was—

Mr. Dalton: He did not serve in it but as a servant of the Government—as a civil servant.

Sir P. Harris: Exactly, as a faithful and loyal servant discharging his duty with the impartiality characteristic of a civil servant. In serving in the capacity of Secretary to the War Cabinet or Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence he carried out decisions and the policy of his then masters and I assume

he did it with equal efficiency when the Labour Government went out and the so-called National Government took its place. I assume he carried out their decisions with the same efficiency when he was a civil servant. Surely it is not fair to suggest that as a civil servant he was responsible for policy. The qualification and justification for his membership of the Cabinet is his remarkably long experience in the business of carrying on war and it would be a pity, with so few men available of his experience, that the Government should not take the opportunity to utilise his services in the position where he is most suited. I do not take the view that many who have been through the process of election on the opposite benches are more qualified or more suitable than this very distinguished ex-civil servant who is extremely well qualified for this work. I am not prepared to support this Amendment.
It is a substantial point in connection with this gentleman's pension, but I do not take the same exception because, after all, a pension has been properly earned by a civil servant and he is entitled to it. We are, however, entitled to know whether Lord Hankey is a director of the Suez Canal. I think it would be most improper if he is receiving a salary as a member of the War Cabinet. Somebody else should be found to fill his position of a director of the Suez Canal. However small that work may be it obviously would not be proper that he should be carrying out double duties, but as for his training, knowledge and experience, I only wish every member of a War Cabinet was so well qualified.

7.47 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I would like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who spoke for the Liberal party, reinforcing what I said about the qualifications of Lord Hankey. It is rather interesting, for if hon. Members care to refer to Dod they will find that he was one of the very few survivors who received the thanks of Parliament at the end of the last war. It shows the experience and knowledge he must have gained and the opinion the then Parliament held of his abilities—rather contrary to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton).

Mr. Dalton: On the contrary, I pay the highest tribute to his ability. My criticism relates to the period subsequent to 1931.

Captain Crookshank: We do not want to prolong the argument in this way, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to go to a Division, we had better carry on with the discussion. As the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green said, I must take exception to quoting views about what happened at a time when a particular person was Secretary for a body for which he had no responsibility. Secretaries are not responsible for the actions of the Cabinet. Indeed, to suggest that they are so responsible would be a perfectly stupid argument, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland should have put it forward in this connection. I can only suppose that it was a little difficult for him to get round the Chair; I do not blame him because perhaps it is a little difficult. The hon. Gentleman does not really expect any detailed exposition as to how the duties of the Minister without Portfolio are carried out in the War Cabinet but everybody knows the general idea. As I pointed out in my opening speech, there are departmental Ministers responsible for the Departments, and in addition there are Ministers without Portfolio, such as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. On the precedent of the last war they may sometimes be investigating a problem until they can present a report to their colleagues.
I now turn to the specific questions regarding the pension and the Suez Canal directorate. As regards the pension, it is, as the hon. Baronet quite rightly said, in cases of this kind to be considered as deferred pay, and can therefore be drawn at the same time as the salary of a Cabinet Minister. As regards the Suez Canal directorate, of course my noble Friend has relinquished it, as is necessary for all Ministers joining the Government.

Mr. Dalton: Is the vacancy being kept open for him later, or is it going to be filled on his resignation?

Captain Crookshank: I do not know whether it was not necessary to make an immediate appointment. I have no precise information about that at all, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to put a Question down to the Prime Minister whether

the directorate may have to be filled forthwith, no doubt he will get a specific reply.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know the gentleman under discussion, but I know something about the principle, and particularly the last thing that has been referred to by the Financial Secretary. I am glad to hear the admission that pensions are regarded as deferred payment. I hope that we shall hear more of that principle during the next few weeks. If pensions are deferred payment when they range into the thousands, it is all the more reason why they should be regarded as deferred payment when they range only into shillings. I would ask whether the Government are following out the principle which governs those with a salary of £5,000 a year and applying it to other individuals who are called upon in the Services—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that we can discuss only the one salary and not ask about the general principle of other salaries.

Mr. Tomlinson: I ask the Committee to vote against this salary because the Government lay down one principle for the man who is overpaid and another principle for the man who is underpaid. The passing of this Vote will create another anomaly which will cause great dissatisfaction. In the smoke room to night I was talking to a young man who is on his way to France. The dissatisfaction among the men in the British Expeditionary Force is growing as the result of anomalies such as this. It means that we are paying the people who have the money by taking it away from those who have not got it. I cannot justify the payment of this salary to a Member of the War Cabinet when we are treating men in the field in the scurvy way in which they are being treated.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Price: In addition to the point raised by my hon. Friend, there is also the motive which has moved my hon. Friends to press the Amendment. It is that we are not satisfied with the constitution of the War Cabinet. We cannot discuss that, but it is necessary to point out one of the motives which have led us to divide against this Vote. We discussed this matter last Thursday, and it


comes up now on a much narrower issue. We are entitled, if we cannot develop it in the Debate, to register our views in the Division Lobby.

[Division No. 11.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A. J.
Jackson, W. F.
Silverman, S. S.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W. 


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clause, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Dobbie, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woodburn, A.


Gardner, B. W.
Mort, D. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Adamson and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Etherton, Ralph
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McKie, J. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Magnay, T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Blair, Sir R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Medlicott, Captain F.


Boulton, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. 


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Nall, Sir J.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harbord, Sir A.
Owen, Major G.


Butcher, H. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peake, O.


Channon, H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Holdsworth, H.
Power, Sir J. C.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major H. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Pym, L. R.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Radford, E. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Jennings, R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Reith, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Davidson, Viscountess
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Robertson, D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rowlands, G.


Danville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.
Salt, E. W.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Emery, J. F.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,780, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 160.

Schuster, Sir C. E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Scott, Lord William
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Selley, H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Tate, Mavis C.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, G. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Spens, W. P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.



Storey, S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, the additional salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a Member of the Cabinet, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Law Officers'Department, the salaries and expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

CLASS I.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

8.3 p.m.

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): I should like to say a word upon this Supplementary Estimate. The Government Hospitality Fund was established many years ago, and the First Commissioner of Works has always been entrusted with its administration. The original Estimate up to next April was £12,000, and I am now asking for a Supplementary Estimate of £10,000 to cover expenses which could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was

prepared. Those additional expenses are the result of the war, which has brought to our shores many visitors. At great risk and inconvenience to themselves, they have come here to assist us in the successful conduct of the war. The Government have been glad to entertain the Turkish Mission, and a number of French Deputies whose co-operation and counsel we have greatly valued and with whom we hope to maintain close and cordial contact. I am sure that no Member of the Committee will begrudge for a moment the cost of entertaining distinguished visitors, and will wish that the hospitality extended to them should be the best and most generous which the country can afford.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I notice that in this Supplementary Estimate provision is made for an expansion of the Economic Department of the Colonial Office, and I should like the Secretary of State to give me a little information as to what his new extensions contemplate and what are the duties upon which that Department is actually engaged. A short time ago I put a Question in this House about the abolition, during the war period anyway, of the Empire Marketing Board, and I was told that its duties had been transferred


to the Economic Department. I should like to know whether this Department is bringing under review all the important economic problems which are associated with the Colonial Empire during the war. The economic organisation of the Empire is a matter of fundamental concern to the inhabitants of the various territories, and we want to feel that these economic problems are being satisfactorily handled during the war. The breakdown of the Empire Marketing Board is a matter of very grave importance, because at a time of disruption of communications and other economic difficulties it is vitally important that the products of the Empire should find a market.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the subjects which can be raised on this Supplementary Estimate. What he is saying would be in order upon the Colonial Office Vote as a whole, but discussions upon a Supplementary Estimate must be confined to the subject of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Creech Jones: I understood that the expansion arose through war necessity, and I was drawing attention to the vital importance of economic organisation during the war. I am anxious to discover what are the duties which the Economic Department will undertake now that the Empire Marketing Board has ceased to exist, at a time when the needs of the Empire are greater than ever. Further, I should like to ask whether the labour problems are being considered, whether the Department is charged with the responsibility of the expansion of social services, native welfare work and other matters concerned with the growth of industrialisation in certain of the Colonies and the necessity of labour organisation to meet that growth.

8.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the hon. Member has said, the advent of war has somewhat altered the work which was carried on in the Colonial Office with regard to economic questions affecting the Colonies. At the beginning of the war the work of the Colonial Marketing Board was suspended because the conditions under which Colonial products were sold in the markets of the world have been altered by the war. The Government have become the purchasers of many

Colonial products, such as sugar, cocoa, ground nuts, and Colonial wool, and in that connection a good deal more work has fallen upon the Economic Department, which is, of course, working in close consultation and co-operation with the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Shipping, the Treasury, and other Departments which are occasionally concerned. Although that is not the whole explanation of this enlargement of the Economic Department—because I should have proposed an enlargement in any case, on account of the great importance which I attach to the developing work of that Department—nevertheless the advent of war made an increase of officers in that division of the Colonial Office still more urgent. A good deal of the extra money required under Sub-head A is wanted for the salaries of extra officers in the Economic Department. I have appointed a new Assistant Under-Secretary of State, who will devote a great deal of his time to looking after these economic questions. I have added an additional principal to the Department and have increased a good deal the clerical staff.

Mr. George Griffiths: What is the salary of those two whom the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned?

Mr. MacDonald: The total sum involved in my additions to that Department is something over £1,000; it is £1,300. Of course, the new assistant Under-Secretary of State is not a new officer. He was in the Economic Department before, and he has now received an increase in his salary because of his promotion to higher office in the Colonial Department.

Mr. Griffiths: It is a new post entirely?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: It being a new post, what is the salary of it?

Mr. MacDonald: The salary is the normal one attaching to such a post, namely £1,700. It is a new post, but the whole of the salary paid to the officer is not a new charge. The officer himself was in the Economic Department and has been promoted to the additional post created. The additional sum required for him, the new principal and the additional clerical staff in the Economic Department comes to £1,300.

Mr. Griffiths: Somebody else has the post now that he had before he was promoted; is that not so?

Mr. MacDonald: Another officer has been brought in from a Colonial post overseas and has taken his place as the head of the Economic Department. With regard to the other Question raised by the hon. Member, whether the Economic Department is concerning itself with labour questions and with the development of the social services in the Colonies, the answer is in the negative. Labour questions come under the General Department, and social services come under a different Department, the Social Services Department. Therefore, I am afraid that it would be out of order to deal with those questions under this particular heading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants and expenses in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare."

8.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): It will be seen that the Supplementary Estimate is caused by two main items of expenditure. The larger amount of £588,000 is in respect of grants from the Exchequer to local education authorities. The old grant formula with its complicated provisions was found to be too difficult to operate during war-time, and therefore a new formula has been devised, based on the expenditure of the last year. That has resulted in benefiting local education authorities by transferring from local education authorities to the Exchequer some £500,000 of expenditure.

Mr. Ede: That is based on 1937–38 and not on 1938–39?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, 1937–38, the year before; the expenditure is based on that. A point which I will dismiss straight away is a small item due to the public-spirited action of the gas industry in providing a special exhibit in the Science Museum. This expenditure is purely a book-keeping entry, since the gas industry itself will be paying it. The third and main item of this Supplementary Estimate deals with the setting up of the National Youth Committee. I do not propose at this late hour to go into detail about the National Youth Committee and its work, unless the Committee particularly desire me to do so. I am hoping that at the end of next month, when we have a general Debate on education, to be able to give a more connected account of that work.
There is a special reason for that to which I will refer in one minute. At the outbreak of war, some of us felt that it was urgently necessary to do something to deal with the question of adolescents, partly because of the drying-up of subscriptions tovoluntary bodies peculiarly associated with this work and partly because of the abnormal conditions of the black-out, the strain on the home and, in many cases, the withdrawal of the parents. We therefore set up the National Youth Committee, as it is called. Our first job was to get ready a new circular with a new call to local education committees. That circular, which was sent out more than two months ago, invited local education committees to submit schemes before the end of this month. I am very glad to say that out of 146 authorities nearly 80 have already taken some action. I have, unfortunately, been indisposed during the last six weeks, otherwise I should have been able to tour various parts of the country. I have so far been able to go only to Liverpool and Manchester, but in the course of the coming months I hope to see a large number of authorities in the Midlands and in the North and to try to bring home to them, and to the other bodies concerned, the importance of this work.
From the response which we have already received I am happy to say that local education authorities have welcomed this new responsibility which has been


laid upon them for dealing with the 14-to-18-year period. I could say more about the work of the National Youth Committee. We have met several times. We have with us representatives of the local education authorities, of the teaching profession, of industry, of trade unions, of employers, and of the voluntary bodies. As chairman of the committee, I can say that they are working together in a way which makes it possible, it seems to me for the first time, to have a focus for the youth work of this country. I want to see a similar focus in each locality throughout the country. We have paid special attention to getting young people themselves on to the local youth committees. It is very easy for a body of men and women, all of them perhaps over 40, to think that they are interpreting what youth wants or what the need of the day is. We specially ask that on the committees set up in various areas there should be representatives of people between the ages of 18 and 30, not necessarily attached to any voluntary body. I am proposing to have a similar panel who can advise us at the centre.
You may say, How was this money, £35,000, spent? I am glad to say that the money was allocated straight away. The need was absolutely urgent. There was an absence of leaders, and, in some cases, premises had been taken over for Defence purposes. Subscriptions to voluntary bodies have been falling off, and we put money at the disposal of the main voluntary bodies. As we had the chairman and vice-chairman of the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Organisations on the committee, this was simple. Then we rightly gave a grant to the Central Council for Recreative Physical Training, which is the central body for such work in this country. A corps of 22 trained and experienced representatives of this body—11 men and 11 women—have gone out into the various regions in the country and have put themselves at the disposal of local education authorities, voluntary organisations and firms, to assist in and stimulate the work. The authorities' physical training organisers can hardly tackle it because they are so busy with the schools. We have had regular reports from Miss Colson, who is the secretary of that Central Council, and I am sure that the money is well spent.
A further sum of £4,500 in the first instance was put at the disposal of a small committee to allot to clubs not affiliated to the principal voluntary organisations. Some of these clubs are of a very interesting type and have been started since the war. For instance, there are mixed clubs, sometimes called in-and-out clubs, and sometimes called black-out clubs, which have started in the populous areas and which are being helped through this committee. The National Youth Committee are considering a whole range of subjects. We are considering, for instance, the problem of youth and training on the land. We have been considering the problem of the "16 to 20's,"as they are sometimes called, and a great many different suggestions have been made, because, as hon. Members will realise, full time education has been interrupted, and, in many cases, jobs which many young fellows would have gone into, such as apprenticeships in firms and so on, are no longer open to them. Those boys—I do not say a very large number—have become unemployed, and we thought their need would be within the scope of our work. We have also had before us a number of kindred problems. We have taken emergency action about the re-opening of clubs and the release of their buildings from Defence purposes.
More and more I think we shall come to regard the National Youth Committee as the place where the Departments, organisations and young people themselves will find their questions being discussed. In some cases we can only discuss them and then pass on our recommendations to the proper quarter. With the formation of youth committees as I hope in every Part II authority—and even perhaps in Part III areas, although that is a bigger question—there will be a chain of youth committees representing the work which is being done for those between 14 and 20 under the education authorities' auspices. I can only say that I have very great hopes of the future of the National Youth Committee. I hope that all the local education authorities will respond before the end of this month, or before the end of next month at the latest, and I also hope that by getting those of 14 to 18 years of age more under the control of the education authorities, we shall have laid the foundation of something in our


education system which many of us desire.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Does this youth welfare entirely supersede the physical fitness committees?

Mr. Lindsay: The activities of the National Fitness Council and the local committees which were responsible to it were suspended on the outbreak of war.

Mr. Griffiths: They are not only suspended; they are cleared out, are they not? I have put it a bit bluntly.

Mr. Lindsay: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: Then there is no chance of these folks getting that money which you promised them?

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I desire to congratulate the hon. Member on his recovery and on his reappearance in the House. He has told us that these Supplementary Estimates contain one main item and that the purpose of that item is for the National Youth Committee which is to replace the National Fitness Council. Of course, that is one way of putting it. This is an admission on his part and on the part of the Government of a very gross error on which the whole of this fitness movement was originally based, and which the Government persisted in committing in spite of the fact that as soon as the Bill was introduced on Second Reading I myself warned them that the whole Bill was based on the wrong foundation and that some day we should see the result which the hon. Member has now unfolded to the House. Not only I, but my hon. Friends also gave the warning. We pointed out that these problems of national fitness and health are problems which involve the fundamental problems of administration; that they involve problems of the proper distribution of money between physical education and physical recreation, and that a man was in no way qualified to form judgment on problems of that kind merely because he could run a quarter of a mile faster than anyone else.
The Government set up this National Fitness Council; it was a very amateur body, and the building up of the physical fitness organisation was left to them. We pointed out that bodies which should administer this sort of experiment should

be local authorities consisting of men and women who have given their whole interest and attention to problems of national health of the very kind on which they would now be asked to give their opinion. Our advice was not taken. A great deal of money was being spent, and a great deal of money has been wasted. The National Fitness Council got no response or interest from the public. I remember how it was started with considerable boosting by the Minister who is now Minister for Air. Now the mistake is admitted in the middle of a war, under very unfavourable circumstances; our original advice has been forgotten, and the matter has been handed over to the local education authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a Debate on education within two or three weeks, and we shall then look forward to having from him a full account of this subject, and we shall be able to discuss it more fully. When that Debate comes my hon. Friends and I will still have some advice to give as to the future of this experiment, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman in the meanwhile to tune his mind to be more responsive to the advice we shall then give than the then Minister was three years ago.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: With respect to the first item of £588,000, there are one or two observations that I should like to make. The Minister suggested that in war-time the complicated grants system could not be worked, and said that therefore they had fallen back upon, the years 1937–38, and that that meant an added expenditure, which is the sum we are voting to-night. I wish that, as a consequence of the war, we could regularise this procedure on a slightly different basis, and get away from the antiquated grants system.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not go into that on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Tomlinson: I was simply pointing out that the reason for the Supplementary Estimate was the complicated grants system, which could not be worked in war-time.

The Chairman: That may be, but the hon. Member must not now discuss that complicated system.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I have no intention of doing so. I know that the Committee would not listen to me, and that I should not be in order at this stage. But I want to point out that, while this is gratifying to those local authorities which have gained as a result, provision is not made for the carrying-out of the promises given by the Government, and that some local education authorities in this country, even when we have voted this £588,000, will be in a worse position as a consequence of the change than they were previously. If I may give an illustration—

The Chairman: That will come on the main Vote, not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am afraid it will not come on the main Vote. The argument that was put forward by my right hon. Friend a moment ago applies similarly to this, that if advice is not taken at the time, it is lost for ever. These local authorities have no power to go back on the decision once it is taken. Local authorities which were receiving 50 per cent. of the expenditure for certain items are now receiving only 19 per cent. I could give proof of this, and will do so in the Debate on education, when the Chair is not quite so strict as at the moment. I am glad that my right hon. Friend reminded the Minister of the warning that was given, that the physical fitness campaign would not work. The reasons that were then given for that prophecy have been proved to be correct. It was largely because the voluntary organisations were not in a position to carry out the administrative work which was necessary, although those organisations cost a lot of money. I hope the Government are going to be as generous in the years to come as they were in the years when they were trying to make the voluntary organisations work. It cost £135,000 for that last year, which is rather a large sum to pay in order to prove that an experiment was not worth while.
I will appeal to the Minister to consider before the end of March that other question about which he merely dropped a hint. If we are to get value for the Supplementary Estimate, we need to realise the pitfalls that yet confront those committees. I am anxious that the local committees should respond. It is the

county councils who are responsible but the greatest work done under this scheme will be done in industrial areas under Part II authorities as far as some localities are concerned. Unless you get co-operation between Part II and Part III authorities the scheme will fall down, for the simple reason that those Part III organisations which have been doing similar work will carry on in the same way as they have been doing. The Minister, in his Circular explaining the working of this service of youth, says that there will not be much difficulty in this connection because there is already machinery for delegating the work of higher education. In some districts there is, but it is not delegated in the true sense of the word; it is a co-operation rather than a delegation. It is not a delegation, in the sense that the higher education committee of a Part III authority have no power to raise more than a penny rate for education. The money will have to be found otherwise than by the local education authorities. I want some machinery by which co-operation between Part II and Part III authorities can be brought about so that we can touch every section of the community.
I was glad to read the reference to clubs. Black-out clubs and others were mentioned—I was glad that there was no reference to "diddlem"clubs. We have had quite a number of clubs set up. For that reason, I am glad the work is to be scrutinised and inaugurated mainly by the local education authorities. I think they can work with the voluntary organisations, like the Workers' Educational Association, which have been in need of assistance, but they will scrutinise and inaugurate this work, and they will be able, therefore, not only to provide the type of club which is necessary, but to see that it is going on right lines. I hope that not too much will be made of the physical fitness side of the business. To me the preparation of youth—if I may say so without using the term sloppily—is a spiritual rather than a physical business. There is more to be done in mental training than in physical training.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting on to the main Vote.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but it is the subject for which this money is being provided.

The Chairman: But the hon. Member is going outside the Rules of Debate on Supplementary Estimates, which are very narrow indeed. The hon. Member cannot discuss policy, which is a matter for the main Vote.

Mr. Tomlinson: With all respect, Sir Dennis, I suggest that unless money provided under the Supplementary Estimate for the inauguration of a service is spent on right lines, the money—which will be spent when the main Vote is before us—may be wasted. The point that I want to make is that it is essential that we should begin on right lines and get the clubs, the institutions, and the classes working in a properly constituted way, with proper supervision.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I welcome the provision which is being made to enable local authorities, in conjunction with the approved societies, to encourage the development of facilities for social welfare and physical training and recreation among young people. I sincerely hope that in administering this fund the Board will keep in mind the special position which has arisen since the outbreak of the war in industrial districts, into which large numbers of young people have been brought away from their homes, and where no social provisions or amenities exist at all. I represent a constituency where a large number of young people have come into the town. The resources of the local inhabitants are already exhausted by their own good deeds and the provision of certain welfare work, and little money is available to meet the need of social amenities of the young people who have now come there to work, and the result is that in the evenings, when work is over, nothing is done, or very little can be done, to provide either recreational or physical welfare work. The consequence is likely to be demoralisation and unhappiness for these young people during their leisure hours. Therefore, I welcome the beginning of this movement. By using approved societies, and by administration in conjunction with the local authorities, some extremely valuable work can be done, particularly at this moment, among the young people who are torn away from their homes and are living in a completely new environment, and who in the conditions of the black-out and of war

are subjected to very severe moral stresses and strains. I sincerely hope that that aspect of the problem will be kept in mind in the administration of this new money.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I would like to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his return to the House. We shall not now be assured by the Junior Whips on a Thursday that the information we desire will be obtained from the hon. Member when he comes back, but we shall be able to get it from him first-hand. The Junior Whips have been most obliging and polite, and if the hon. Member redeems all the promises that they have made in his name we shall get a great deal more than is provided for in this Supplementary Estimate. With regard to the first part of the Supplementary Estimate, I take it that the old grant formula is now dead and buried, and that, whatever the future holds, we may rest assured that that will never see a resurrection, and that now some serious attention will have to be given to the production of a grant formula really in accordance with modern conditions. There are some authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) has said, who will not regard the present proposal with complete gratification, but I think that for the majority of the authorities in the country it represents an attitude on the part of the Board which is perhaps even more generous than just. That much ought to be said, and we must hope that the Board will bear in mind the special difficulties which may confront a few local authorities upon whom the new proposal may work hardship, and that they may receive special consideration from the Board.
I cannot help thinking that, with regard to the wiping out of the National Fitness Council and its area committees, and the establishment of the new committee, the two subjects have been rather more closely connected this evening in the Debate than they actually are on the facts of the case. The National Fitness Council and its area committees were wiped out. That was Act I. I am not at all sure that it was in the same play that Act II—the establishment of the service ofyouth—originated. I regard the first as a piece of panic administration and the second as an afterthought. I have listened with some surprise to my


right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends this evening in the hope that they foster of the new organisation. It is only a proof of the truth of the saying,
Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
and no matter how often we are disappointed we still hope for something better from the next exposition of Government policy. As one who is engaged in the administration of the new policy, as I was in the old, I see very hittle change, except that now we have the local education authorities doing the work instead of the area committees, but we are still ultimately dependent in the main upon these very inefficient voluntary organisations. In the actual districts you are to depend upon getting these organisations on to their feet.
The hon. Gentleman to-night was quite frank. He said that one cause for the setting up of this work was the drying up of the voluntary subscriptions to these organisations. We are merely going to replace the voluntary subscriptions that are now being paid, not on a voluntary basis, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of to these voluntary bodies, but I do not think that we shall get the kind of advantage that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I believe that the work must be organised on a more scientific and workmanlike basis than it has been hitherto, if the provision of this money is really to be worth while. You can subsidise these voluntary organisations as long as you like, but you will never get the efficient work from them for which my hon. Friends have been asking this evening. The things for which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth is asking are not in the main going to be done in these clubs; they are going to be done in classes and organisations that will be effectively originated, managed and controlled by the local education authorities, who will, increasingly during the next few years, have to do this work. The great majority of the young men who were engaged in the voluntary organisations are now with the Services in one form or another. They have disappeared, and, as the age for military service rises, the few who are left will gradually be taken away and their places will have to be taken by persons provided by the local education authorities.
How far has the survey that was made by the old National Fitness Council been preserved? There were various area committees that conducted very extensive and detailed surveys of all the facilities that were available, as far as the physical education side was concerned, in their various areas. The two counties for which I was responsible had virtually completed a survey of every parish, and they had a list of the organisations that were run by the local authorities and of those that were run by voluntary organisations in the whole of the area. We were on the point of trying to fill in the gaps and prevent overlapping. I know that most of the areas had nearly completed a similar survey, which must, even in its unfinished form, be of the very greatest value, and I hope that that will be available for Part II educational authorities when they have to establish their schemes under the Service of Youth movement. It would be lamentable in these times, with depleted staffs, if we had to go all over that work again and re-collect the information.
The area committees were shut down with such haste that I am not at all sure that all the documents were collected, but I hope that such documents as are available will now be passed on almost at once to the local education authorities so that they can have the benefit of the information collected when they set about starting their Service of Youth schemes. If this scheme is to be worth while it will cost a great deal more money than is now being provided. It is a kind of scheme which could easily be wrecked by spending too little money. I am not advocating any extravagant expenditure, but if we are to do the thing at all we had better do it well. If we half do the thing it is worse than not doing it at all, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that local education authorities will receive the fullest co-operation from the Board of Education as this scheme begins to grow.
I do not share in all the disappointment which has been expressed with regard to the National Fitness Council. I believe their staff served them well, that the work they did up to the time they were officially suspended was good, and that the next two or three years would have seen a widening of their activities that would have justified a good deal of expenditure. But what I want to ask is: Have the


staffs that did that work received from the Board that treatment they ought to have had? Has the Board been able to place them with local education authorities or in such positions that would enable their work to be carried on? So far as my own area is concerned the only person who managed to get a job was one for whom I obtained a job myself. The remainder did not get a job and it is a serious thing that these people should have been left in such a position at a time when the obtaining of employment is very difficult. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look into their position and do what he can to assist them.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I would like to say a word or two in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I cannot let it go out that the formation of this Youth Committee was an afterthought. It is a deliberate and carefully thought-out policy. So far as I am concerned I believe the right way to carry out this policy is through the education authorities. I do not share to the full the criticism which has been made of the Fitness Council. I think they did a valuable work, but I always felt that the machinery was too cumbrous. As regards the point about surveys, they have been preserved and have already mostly been put at the disposal of local authorities. Lastly, we have made attempts to get the staff, where they possessed suitable qualifications for the work, employment in Government Departments and in local authorities' offices. I hope that local education authorities who may now be requiring staff for their local Youth Committees will help us further in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, n6t exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants and expenses in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare."

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day

of March, 1940, for public education in Scotland, for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry grants in aid and grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection with the youth welfare."

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to raise one or two points in connection with the expenditure of 5,000 consequent on the setting up of the National Youth Committee which, according to this declaration, is going to give grants to approved organisations. This amount, divided up amongst the burghs alone, gives a sum of about £30 each, and if we include the counties of Scotland the amount is infinitesimal compared with the task that is going to be undertaken in organising the youth of Scotland and diverting them to healthier activities. I would like to suggest, as an economy, the use of existing facilities in order to make less necessary the spending of money in this way. In a great number of towns and counties in Scotland large new housing areas have been established and in many cases they are far away from the centres where social activities are carried on. In order to establish social activities in these places you would require enormous expenditure of money and energy, and it would save much of this if more use were made of the existing schools to provide centres for the activities which people are prepared to initiate themselves. I think it is a disadvantage that this word "approved"should come in. I differ from some of my hon. Friends who have said that everything youth does must be approved by old people. If young people are only going to do what old people approve then they are starting where we left off.

Mr. Ede: Where we began very often.

Mr. Woodburn: Unless youth experiments and is to some extent rebellious it is not healthy, and I think we ought to allow youth to establish its own organisations and have facilities for carrying them on whether we approve or not. If, in these great housing areas, these young men and women are not allowed a centre in which to meet and carry on healthy activities, then their energies are diverted to channels which may in the long run prove more costly from a social point of view. If I may I will refer to an experiment conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. T. Johnston)


when, many years ago, a Scottish education authority could not get youth into the schools. He experimented by starting boxing and dancing classes and he allowed youth to run these classes themselves on the condition that nobody should attend unless they first of all enrolled in one of the educational classes. By that means the Scottish authority was able to make an increased claim on the Exchequer for grants for increased attendances at their ordinary classes.
There are many activities of youth of which I can see certain authorities not approving. The trade union movement and the Labour political movement are activities of which many local authorities do not approve, and it may be thought that by barring people from schools you can prevent youth thinking politically. I do not think that is possible. If people are going to discuss politics at street corners why should they not have the opportunity of discussing these things within the walls of a school? We have a Labour Youth Movement and I believe that the party opposite have also a Youth Group called the "Imps." Why should they not do their "imping" in a schoolroom instead of wandering about the streets at night and, perhaps, "imping" in the wrong way? I suggest there is nothing wrong with these political activities and that this idea of politics being not a normal part of healthy life is dangerous from the point of view of the State. I suggest that we ought to provide every facility for people carrying on their own organisations. If we do that we shall save a great deal of expense instead of trying to organise them into channels which we want them to follow, rather than those of their own bent.
In Edinburgh, for example, in some of the housing schemes where young trade unionists want to take part in Labour college classes and to study economics, economic geography, history, and other subjects, the education authority, simply because they do not approve of these young people studying these things under their own auspices, refuse to let them a schoolroom in which to carry on their activities. That may be one way of preventing them from carrying on their activities, but it does not prevent them from thinking, and it does not lead them to appreciate the democratic system any better if they are not allowed to discuss

things in a reasonable way at the only centre which exists for that sort of thing in large, areas.
I should like to make one or two constructive suggestions in regard to the general development of the activities of youth. I think that in these schools there should be provided facilities for youth to store the apparatus which they use in their sporting activities. One of the difficulties which young men and women have is to find a place in which to keep their boots, bats, and cricket apparatus, footballs, jerseys, and so on; and in many schools it would be possible to provide some facilities for these clubs to store their sporting appliances. I agree that a great deal could be done by keeping the association of the school, and a development of the former pupils'associations would keep these young men and women in connection with the schools. But again, if that is to be done, it cannot be done along the hard and fast lines we like. We have to cater, for the activities in which youth itself wants to take part. In the long run, £5,000 will be far too little. I think advice should be taken from some of the people who have successfully run youth organisations. In many cases these youth organisations are themselves capable of raising money for their activities. While the grant-in-aid may be very useful, I hope it will not be limited simply to approved organisations, and that young people, trade unionists and others, will be allowed to form their own organisations, and provided they do not damage the schools and that they behave themselves in a civilised way, they ought to be allowed the facilities of the schools in their areas.

9.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): I think the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) was dealing somewhat widely with the subject of the Supplementary Estimate. It is true, as has been said, that there will be opportunities later in the month for discussing the subject of education on a somewhat wider basis. The point to-night is the Supplementary Estimate for £5,000 to be paid on account of the new body which has been set up, the Scottish Committee of the National Youth Committee. I do not think the fears which the hon.Member has expressed have very much


ground. I entirely agree with him in his belief in the freedom which youth ought to enjoy and his distaste of older persons too much directing and overwhelming youth with advice; but of course, in the same breath the hon. Member went on to say that, while being entirely in favour of freedom, he wished them all to grow up into good Socialists and to think one way politically, a point of view which indeed comes properly and fittingly from the hon. Member, occupying the position which he does in his party.
I do not think it is necessary on this occasion to go into the details of this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has said a certain amount on the subject of the National Youth Committee and the reasons for which it was formed, and I could, if necessary, explain it still further, but a good deal of publicity has been given to this activity and I hope more publicity will be given to it. A circular dated 27th November was issued by the Scottish Education Department on this very subject. I will only say, on the matter of this Vote and the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, that £5,000, if looked at in a long view, is indeed very inadequate for the purpose, but I do not think we need take it that £5,000 is a sum which is going to suffice for years and years ahead. It is for immediate needs and those needs have been given publicity and will be discussed, I am certain, not only on one occasion but on many occasions in the House in future, when we shall have an opportunity of dealing with them much more fully than we can within the limits of the Debate to-night.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: As I understand the position, we are being asked to vote £5,000 for the purpose of providing the funds necessary for the sub-committee for Scotland of the National Youth Committee, which is to take the place of the National Fitness Council, the work of which was suspended because of the outbreak of war. Time and again much unfair criticism has been levelled against the National Fitness Council and the work on which it was engaged. It had the terrific task of building up a new organisation and planning, and in Scotland a good deal of its planning in connection with the regional organisation turned out to be

very useful at the outbreak of war, for that regional planning was practically accepted in connection with the regional planning for Civil Defence purposes. The work which the National Fitness Council did was preparatory work, and that work has now gone by the board because of the outbreak of war; consequently, we have not been able to get the full advantage of the hard spadework that was done by the National Advisory Council which dealt with the physical training and welfare of the youth of our country. The new committee is to take its place.
One of the difficulties that faced the National Fitness Council was the fact that direct grants were not made available, except in one special instance, to the local education authorities, and unless direct grants can be made to the local authorities for this initial work, there will not be a real success in dealing with this problem. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) made a special reference to approved associations, which are referred to in the explanatory note to the Supplementary Estimate. I would point out that, while I entirely agree with him that there should be freedom of organisation and that youth should have some say in connection with that organisation, surely it is right that before a grant is made, one should at least know the work that is to be done by the organisation in question. It is not so much a question of its work as of approving of the organisation itself for the purposes of the special grant. An application was made to the National Fitness Council for a special grant to assist the physical training and recreation facilities of the members of a miniature rifle club. The application was turned down on the ground that it would be of no use in the promotion of physical training and recreation. I presume that if national funds are to be used for the purpose of assisting organisations it will be the duty of any committee which is set up, to approve of an organisation before national funds are handed over to that organisation to help its work. I suggest that special grants ought to be made available to local education authorities as well as to approved associations.
We are told that this £5,000 is to meet the expenses of regional organising. I should like to know how many regional organisers have been appointed; how are


they placed in Scotland for the purpose of carrying out their work, and what salaries are they being paid? Do they include any of the personnel originally engaged by the National Fitness Council? In this connection, I would support the complaint which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). On the outbreak of war these staffs were immediately disbanded. In some cases it was a shame. People were dismissed almost at a moment's notice and no provision whatever was made for them. I am not sure whether all have yet been replaced. It is true that none of them were permanent officials in the sense that our teachers are, but they were, at least, entitled to fair consideration, even though war had broken out. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman therefore to tell us how many of these are included in the appointments to which I have referred; what salaries are being paid and where these officials are placed for the purpose of carrying out what I hope will be the successful work of this new organisation.

9.14 p.m.

Captain McEwen: I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite has to a large extent answered that of his hon. Friend behind him as far as the approved associations are concerned. As regards the regional officers four are to be appointed in Scotland. There are to be two regions in the North and two in the South and there are to be two women organisers and two men organisers. The women are to have £300 a year each and the men £400 a year each. So far, the two women organisers have already been appointed. They are Miss Scott, and Mrs. Watt. The two men organisers have yet to be appointed but it is hoped that the appointments will be made within the next few days.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for public education in Scotland, for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry grants in aid, and grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection With youth welfare."

CLASS III.

APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., SCOTLAND.

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,120, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for grants in respect of the expenses of the managers of approved schools, and of the expenses of Education Authorities in Scotland in respect of children and young persons committed to their care."

CLASS VI.

STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the State Management Districts, including the salaries of the central office, and the cost of provision and management of licensed premises."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (EMERGENCY PROTECTION FROM FORFEITURE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Act to assurance policies.)

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "assurance," to the end of line 16.
The object of this Amendment is to raise once again the question of the limit of £50 mentioned in Clause 1 of the Bill. When the Bill secured a Second Reading the Attorney-General sought to explain why the Government had inserted any sum at all in the Bill. If I were as learned and as clever as the Attorney-General, I should be inclined to be very critical of his statement. The more I read in the Official Report of the House of Commons of what he said, the more I am puzzled as to what he meant. I have turned up Section 24 of the Act of 1923 and having read that and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, I cannot honestly say that he has to my mind made out his case in favour of this £50 limit.
I will give one example in support of my contention. This Bill is to afford protection from forfeiture to holders of industrial assurance policies up to £50. But there is nothing to prevent a policy-holder holding several policies, say, one for £20, another for £30, another for £40, and in the total he may have a policy value of£100 or £120. He will have the protection of this Measure, but if he holds only one policy valued for £55, then he will not get that protection. I do not want to criticise the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or to suggest that he is too closely in touch with the insurance companies. I would not dare to do that, but I am under the impression that the insurance companies have enormous influence with this Government and that before the Government move in a matter of this kind they consult the insurance companies. As 1 said on Second Reading, the Bill is a very necessary one, and it will undoubtedly safeguard policy-holders, but I am still of opinion that this £50 limit has been inserted on the instigation of the insurance companies without any reference to what the policy-holders would like to have done on their behalf. When there are conflicting interests such as insurance companies and financiers and shareholders involved in a matter of this kind, it is the duty of Parliament to safeguard the interests of the policy-holders who cannot be consulted.
I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman even at this stage whether it is not possible to eliminate this sum altogether. He knows how to do it. There are two or three more stages of the Bill where he can do it. There are about 80,000,000 policies. I do not know how many of them are under £50. Some 10,000,000 new policies are given out every year. I cannot tell how many of those are over £50. It seems to me rather amean thing to do, when you are trying to safeguard policy-holders, to say that no policy over £50 shall be safeguarded at all. On the Second Reading the right hon. and learned Gentleman came back all the time to this, that a policy over five years, and in some cases over three years duration, had a value that you could not forfeit at all, but I understand that some of those arrangements are quite voluntarily made by the insurance companies, and there is no compulsion on them to do some of the things the right hon. and learned Gentleman said they

were doing. This is a very narrow but an important point, and I am still hoping that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way clear to-night to give us an indication that he is willing, in spite of the advice he has received from the insurance companies, to wipe out altogether any sum whatever and let all the policies which come within the scope of the Bill be safeguarded from forfeiture under the conditions laid down, because, when we safeguard these policies, the insurance companies take care that they get all their money in the end. Even if the premiums are not paid, when they are calculated at the end of the period they are mulcted in 3 per cent. compound interest, and the policy-holder has to pay up. Even if we eliminate any sum from the Bill the companies are not going to lose financially.

9.23 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a narrow point. On the Second Reading I tried to explain, what was appropriate to that occasion, the general scope and idea of the Measure. It was that special protection against forfeiture should be given to what I may call the characteristic industrial policy, and undoubtedly the characteristic industrial policy is one for less than £50. I agree that you get the anomaly under the Bill as it stands that a particular person or family may have two, three, four, or even as many as six policies, which together add up to more than £50. There are anomalies whatever measure you adopt. The reason why the £50 limit was taken was, first of all, because it was felt that the small policy holder was entitled to special protection and, secondly, because the limit of £50 undoubtedly covers the vast majority of the characteristic industrial assurance policies. There are some industrial policies—not a great many—over £50 and, of course, a great many policies over £50, which are not industrial policies. The non-industrial class do not get statutory protection, but the companies have been called together and have agreed on a scheme which, I think, gives reasonably fair treatment to the ordinary life policy holder.
I think it would have been anomalous if, in the somewhat exceptional cases where you have a life policy over £50 which was within the Industrial Assur-


ance Act, you gave that the special protection which it is thought proper to give to the smaller policy holder. It does not quite rest there, because if it is said, as it might be, that the industrial policy over £50 is very often taken out by someone on the average less well off than the person who takes up a £100, £200, £300, £400, or £500 life policy in an ordinary company, and therefore it might not be right to leave him completely unprotected, the answer to that is that Parliament in 1924 did give some statutory protection to all industrial policy holders in the matter of forfeiture and some other matters. We considered, as I explained on the Second Reading, the position of the industrial policy over £50 very carefully, and we felt that under the existing statutory law and under the practice of companies and collecting societies he would get fair treatment, and there were good grounds for not giving that somewhat exceptional kind of policy the special statutory treatment which we think appropriate to the smaller policies and the characteristic industrial policies. For these reasons I suggest that the Amendment should not be accepted.

9.28 p.m.

Major Milner: I do not think the Committee ought to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He has offered no justification whatever for the figure of £50. For the Attorney-General to say that because the law applies to the great majority of industrial policies, as it may well do, it is adequate and sufficient is really a travesty of our so-called justice. What satisfaction is it to the 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. who have industrial policies over £50, if they are not protected in this way, that the 75 per cent. may be protected under the Bill? That is a very feeble argument. I have not heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer a single justifiable reason for limiting the Bill to £50. Surely one would have thought that a person who is thrifty and is perhaps willing to deny himself more in order to take out a policy for £75 or £100 instead of £50 is the man or woman who, if there is any choice, ought to be favoured by the law in these special circumstances. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the proposition put up by my hon. Friend. What is the answer to the proposition that it is possible for me to take out

four policies of £20 each and on each one I shall have the benefit of this Act, and yet any of my hon. Friends who take one out for £60 or £55 will not have the protection of the Act? What possible justification or rhyme or reason can there be in that proposition?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to be fair and to do the right thing in all these matters, but I am afraid he has come under the evil influence on this occasion of the industrial insurance companies and collecting societies. But what does it matter to them whether the figure is £50, £100, or no figure at all, so long as it is an industrial policy? Surely it would be an advantage to have uniformity and, instead of having one rule for a policy of £50 or less and another for a policy over £50 and another rule for policies which are not industrial policies, have some arrangement whereby all these policies would be on a uniform and satisfactory basis. Everyone will then know the law, and there will be no difficulty for the ordinary man or woman in the street. I see no justification for limiting the policy in this Bill to the sum of £50, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the matter to a Division if the Government cannot agree to consider the question.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in hoping that the mind of the Government is not closed against this Amendment. It seems to me perfectly reasonable. I submit to the Attorney-General that the Government have brought this Measure forward in order to prevent hardship falling upon policy holders because of their inability to pay their instalments through causes arising out of the war. That is an entirely laudable object, but the Government, having done that, have then come forward and said that only those can apply who have experienced hardship if their policy is £50, and not those whose policy is £55. In other words, the Government say that because a man has entered insurance two years before the outbreak of war, it can apply to him, but because another man has entered 23 months before the war, it cannot apply to him.

The Chairman: I think that is a question which arises on the next Amendment.

Mr. Watkins: I thought that we were seeking to remove the lines in which both these provisions are made.

The Chairman: The question of the two years or the one year is a different question from that which we are discussing now.

Mr. Watkins: Very well, I will conclude by saying that if the Government want to have the maximum amount of advantage for the community out of this Measure, they must remove this limitation and let anyone, as far as is reasonable, who is likely to experience hardship benefit under this Measure. I hope the Government, either now or at a later stage, will bear this in mind and include as many people as possible in the terms of the Measure.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I assume that there must be some reason why this figure of £50 has been put into the Bill, otherwise the Government would not have put it there. I must confess after listening to the Attorney-General, that I am still in the dark as to what the Government's reasons are. The Attorney-General told us that there were good grounds for putting in this limitation of £50, but I have to confess again that he has not told us what those good grounds are. If he wishes me to vote that the £50 should remain, he will have to give me his reasons. In fact, I think the Committee is entitled to know these reasons. He said the £50 limit covers the vast majority of cases, but what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Can he give us any good reason why this Bill is desirable up to the £50 limit and why it becomes a bad Bill if the limit is removed altogether? We ought to be given some reason, if there are any reasons. Otherwise, I shall vote for the removal of the limit.

9.35 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: On the Second Reading the Attorney-General assured me that no one is financially interested in the funds of insurance companies except the policy holders. That suits me very well, because when we come to take over these big companies, there will be nobody who will have any claim for any kind of compensation except, of course, the collecting agents whose standards of living we shall improve. Nobody is interested in this

matter except the policy holders inter se, and our duty is to protect the interests of the different kinds of policy holders. The Mover of the Amendment said that the insurance companies cannot lose anything if this Amendment is passed, but is there not a certain sense in which insurance, companies, either regarded as units or as collections of policy holders, will gain something if the Amendment is not passed? They will gain it at the expense of a certain class of policy holder, because when a policy which has been paid for up-to-date is forfeited, there can be no doubt that the insurance company or the policy holders who remain gain financially.
A substantial number of policies over £50 will be forfeited, and a great many people who have been able to make this provision for themselves in past years will find themselves in a position in which they cannot do it any more. That is partly due to our system of compensation, in which, if some small shopkeeper whose business is not so much required in a war emergency has to close down, he just loses his money and nobody compensates him, but if the London Transport Board had to reduce their services, we should goon paying money to them. There will be a great many people who will not keep up their policies and whose claims will, therefore, drop into the pool. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether, in working out the financial details of this scheme, allowance was made for the financial effect of these policies over £50 which are now going to be forfeited and on which, 12 months ago, the insurance companies were expecting to pay at some future time? If allowance was not made for that fact, there is a reserve of money going into the insurance companies which can be used for some purpose. If, on the other hand, allowance was made for it, what a monstrous situation arises. The Government say that they deliberately rigged their Bill so that the rather better-off man shall have his policy and all the money he has paid be dropped into the pool for the benefit of the insurance companies or for the other policy holders. I think that is unjust, and I support the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I wish to disavow any suspicion that the Attorney-General has been in any way under the influence of


the insurance companies. Had he been he would have known more about this business than he does. He tells us there would be an anomaly between the man who had an ordinary business policy for £50 and the man who had an industrial policy for £50 if the £50 policy were not excluded. Apparently he has not the faintest idea that the man who takes out an ordinary business policy pays his premium yearly, half-yearly, or quarterly and gets a higher insurance value for a smaller premium than does the man with the industrial policy. Apparently he has not the remotest idea that under this wording we may be, in some cases, barring out people who are insured for £26, £27, or £28, because an enormous number of industrial policies are on joint lives. A man and his wife may be insured for £40 each and get the protection of this Bill, but a man and his wife jointly insured for £60 would be debarred—just the kind of couple who are in a little business which brings in so low a weekly income that they have to pay their premiums weekly, and who, because they are both concerned in the business, have taken out a joint policy. There are many more of these joint policies which go over £50 than there are single policies which go over £50. I would call the Attorney-General's attention to the puerility of his argument, which in the main is that there are so very few of these policies over £50 that really they do not matter. If they do not matter, then it does not matter about striking out the £50 limitation by accepting our Amendment.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Green: I feel that no excuse is needed for the time which has been taken in discussing this Clause and the Amendment. When the Bill was announced it struck a chord of hope in the minds of many of our serving men, who felt that the obligations they had undertaken would not be wasted; but when they begin to find out the truth, which is that the Bill is hedged about with pettifogging restrictions, there will be grave feelings of discontent and disappointment. On innumerable occasions in our constituencies we shall be asked to explain to the serving man why policies over £50 are not protected. This Bill will discriminate between brother and brother, and I ask anyone who has

listened to the Debate so far, and to the Attorney-General's speech, to say what answer could be given to any critic who asked why the £50 limit had been placed in the Bill. This Measure has the characteristics of many Bills which have been introduced since this war started. Their object is good, but their limitations are such that the appeal which they might make to the community is entirely destroyed.
It has been suggested that the Attorney-General has not come under the influence of the insurance companies and, of course, we must all accept that, but seeing that he has been in touch with insurance companies, cannot he take us into his confidence and tell us what objections they have to the limit being £50? That would be information which would be exceedingly valuable to us. If the Attorney-General could see his way to remove this limitation, it would have the unbounded approval of Members on every side of the Committee. We want to deal decently with these serving men, and to go half-way and stop there does not seem to be statesmanship, nor is it necessary in the circumstances of the case.
The learned Attorney-General opened his speech by saying that this was really a narrow point. I suggest that it is far from being a narrow point. There are thousands of serving men who will find, when they read the record of this discussion, that their policies, because they are over £50 in value, are not covered by the Bill. If it is a fact—I am not sufficiently versed in insurance matters to know—the insurance companies will lose nothing by extending this limit, I hope that the Attorney-General will make some attempt to convince the companies that there is an absence of reasonableness in the limitation.

9.46 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I do not understand why the arbitrary figure of £50 is adopted. [Interruption.] I gather that in so far as any explanation has been given, some hon. Members who heard it did not understand it. If there is a good reason for it, I should like to ask why a man with a £60 or £100 policy should lose the whole of it, while a man with a £50 policy is assured of it. The man with a higher policy ought to be assured of at least £50. A provision of that kind might have been put in the Bill, if the


Government could not go the whole way by removing the limit. I rose in the hope that the Government would tell us a little more about why there is this limit at all. If there is a good reason for the limit, perhaps we may be told why a policy exceeding £50 has not been assured for as much as £50.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: What will happen to the money of the lapsed policies over £50? Will it go to assist the war, or the poverty-stricken insurance companies? It seems that the money will lapse into the coffers of the insurance companies, and, if so, that is a very wrong proceeding. A great deal has been said about the small shopkeeper and the person who lives by saving and scraping for the rainy day; that person will suffer very severely during the present war. A large number of commercial travellers have been thrown on the streets without a possibility of work until industry comes round again, and that sort of person has not taken out a policy for less than £50 but for more, in this war, that type of person has suffered more than in any previous war in our history. The Government will be doing very wrong if they commit an injury to that section of our population. I should be glad to know what happens to the money of the lapsed policies over £50. There is no justification for its going into the coffers of the insurance company.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Have these policies any surrender value?

9.49 p.m.

The Attorney-General: When this problem came up in the last war, the only protection which was afforded or suggested—it was suggested by the party to which the hon. Baronet presumably would have belonged if he had been in Parliament at that time—was in respect of policies up to £25 in value. The reason why Parliament imposed a limit during the last war, and why a limit is proposed in the Bill, is that it was felt, as we feel now, that the holder of a small policy is entitled to special protection from this House against the forfeiture of his rights. This Bill is designed to give special statutory protection over and above that which is already given by the practice and custom both of industrial companies—that is, ordinary branch policies—and of collecting

societies. There is already considerable statutory protection, and although by the custom of industrial companies and collecting societies consideration is given against forfeiture, it was felt that in the case of the small policy holder it was right that we should go beyond existing statutory protection, existing custom, and beyond any voluntary insurance where he would be treated as favourably as the financial position permitted, and give him the special protection of a statute.
That is the principle of the Bill, and I suggest to the Committee that that is a good principle. If that is a good principle, there must be a limit in the Bill, because that principle should give special statutory protection to small policy holders. The limit of £50 can be doubled if you wish. It must be remembered that any protection which was given in the last war was, of course, an arbitrary figure. You may say that a man of £49 receives protection and that a man of £51 does not; you may say that a man with one policy is protected and a man with another is not, but once the principle which I have explained is accepted, there must, of course, be a limit. We fixed the limit at what we felt to be a reasonably high level to cover—I cannot give percentages—the vast majority of ordinary industrial policies. One hon. Member asked what reason the insurance companies gave. We approached them, and they said they thought our suggestion was reasonable and that there should be extra statutory rights to protect the small policy holder. The man who takes out an ordinary branch policy—and I am not quite so ignorant of the differences as the hon. Gentleman suggested—will not receive statutory protection. Therefore, we think it reasonable, in making concessions of the kind given in the Bill to the small policy holder, that in the case of the large policy holder—say, over £50—he should be left like the ordinary branch policy holder to the statutory protection, to the custom which, as every hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentleman opposite knows, both by the collecting society and the company is in fact more generous from the point of view of their statutory obligations, and it really would be contrary to the principle of the Bill to make it apply to large industrial policies or policies irrespective of amount when the whole purpose is to give statutory protection to the small policy holder.

Mr. W. H. Green: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what statutory protection the policy of £60 has which the policy holder for £50 has not?

The Attorney-General: The policy holder for £60 is protected after five years if he is not able to continue his premiums.

Mr. Jagger: That is a long while.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. It does not matter how long the war has been going on; it depends how long the man has been paying his premiums. The practice of the companies and collecting societies is to give a free paid-up policy on that basis in, I think, every case after three years, and in the case of many societies after two years.

Mr. Jagger: Even if it is less than £50?

The Attorney-General: Oh, yes. What I am saying is that the policy for £60 is treated, by custom of the societies, in this way. If the small policy holder had been content with that, there would have been no need for the Bill. It was because we felt it necessary to go beyond that, and give statutory protection, that we have brought in the Bill. That is the principle of the Bill—that there should be special

Division No. 12.]
AYES.
[9.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Petherick, M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Power, Sir J. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pym, L. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hunter, T.
Robertson, D.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rowlands, G.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Levy, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Selley, H. R.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Culverwell, C. T.
Magnay, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duncan, J. A. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spens, W. P.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, S.


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Etherton, Ralph
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sutcliffe, H.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fildes, Sir H.
Munro, P.
Touche, G. C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Peake, O.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

protection for small policy holders. If hon. Members think that that is bad, they will vote for the Amendment. We, looking at it from the point of view of policy holders as a whole, think it a good principle. That is why we propose a limit—a high limit—which will cover the vast majority of cases.

Sir J. Nall: If, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, the man with £49 is ruled out and the man with £51 is ruled in, why cannot the man with £50 be covered?

The Attorney-General: This sets up an elaborate procedure for dealing with that. Where a line is drawn, everyone who is on the wrong side has a sense of hardship. If it is right to draw a line, we think that the line should be drawn here.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask, first, who gets the money from the lapsed policies, and, secondly, is the Attorney-General prepared to add the words "per person" after "fifty pounds," in order to avoid the anomaly I have mentioned?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 80.

Waterhouse, Captain C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.



Wayland, Sir W. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir James Edmonson.


Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Owen, Major G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Holdsworth, H.
Price, M. P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jackson, W. F.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D,
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lipson, D. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mander, G. le M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Woodburn, A.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mort, D. L.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Nall, Sir J.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "two years," and to insert "one year."
In moving this Amendment, I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me whether he has already seen the writing on the wall. If he does not give in on this Amendment, I am not so sure that his Government may not fall tonight, and the sooner it falls the better. I can see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury already looking very glum. Having said so much, I will be very brief in moving this Amendment. The point of it, as hon. Members are aware, is that no policy in this Bill will be protected unless it has been in being for two years. We are proposing that the period shall be one year, and I shall give the reasons why. There are 10,000,000 new policies issued in this country every year and of these about 4,500,000 lapse during the first 12 months. The Attorney-General was asked what became of the lapsed policies. That is where directors and shareholders get their profits. Of course, companies benefit by lapsings; indeed, it is well known that the finances of insurance companies would collapse if this were not so. It is common sense that more people allow their policies to lapse during the first year, than the second, third, fourth or fifth year, because the longer the person pays his premiums

on the policy, the more he clings to it. Take the case of a man in an ordinary occupation before the war. He pays 6d. per week for about nine months and is then called up, with the result that his financial arrangements and family affairs are turned upside down. I think the claim on his behalf is even stronger than it is on behalf of a person who has paid on a policy for two years. Those are the arguments for the Amendment. I say once again to the Attorney-General that he had better beware; he is leading his party tonight, and if he does not accept this Amendment, I am afraid he will be leading the Tory party to sheer destruction.

10.11 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I oppose the Amendment. I think it is generally known that, in respect of insurance policies of any type, the first year's premiums are absorbed in costs of administration, and, therefore, it is essential that a policy should have at least two years' premiums paid on it before there is any credit from which to pay the insurer. It is also generally known that it is a common practice for a person to take out a policy for one year and to pay the premiums, knowing full well that he will lose everything, but that during the year he will have the cover for which the policy was taken out. Therefore, I feel that I must vote against the Amendment. I assure hon. Members


that it would not be in their interests to attempt to press the Amendment, which cannot be seriously defended.

10.12 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Whether, in deciding how to vote on this Amendment, hon. Members ought to have regard to any writing on the wall which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has seen, or whether they ought to have regard to the actuarial position of other policy-holders, is a matter for each hon. Member to decide for himself. Of course, the reason for having the period of two years is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), namely, that for the first year the premiums, although the policy provides cover, really go in initial costs and administrative expenditure, and the policy has no surrender value. Therefore, if the provision covered policies in cases where the premiums for two years had not been paid, it would really amount to providing cover at the expense of the other policy-holders. Once the two years' premiums have been paid, the policy begins to have a surrender value. The period of two years was accepted by Parliament during the last war, we believe it to be fair to the other policy-holders, and therefore, in spite of the hon. Member's suggestion that I am leading my party and presumably myself into disas-

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[10.16 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Etherton, Ralph
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fildes, Sir H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Goldie, N. B.
Markham, S. F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannah, I. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Harbord, Sir A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Nall, Sir J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nevan-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Owen, Major G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Channon, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peake, O.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Holdsworth, H.
Petherick, M.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Pym, L. R.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hutchison, G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Read, A. C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, C. T.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Levy, T.
Robertson, D.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Rowlands, G.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ruggles-Brice. Colonel Sir E. A.

ter, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I see no invisible writing on any imaginary wall; nor do I see any more reason, after hearing the Attorney-General's speech, why this Amendment should be opposed than I did in the case of the last Amendment after he had made three interventions. I understand, as the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) said, that insurance companies and their staffs swallow the first year's premiums in one way and another. I submit that the insured person and the insurance company enter into an insurance agreement, normally with the intention that it shall be carried out. Our Amendment seeks to make it easier for a policy to be kept in being until it gets, not a surrender value, but the final payment for which the insurance has been made. If the first year's premium has been paid and if the policy-holder is in difficult circumstances as a result of the war, I can see no reason why he should not have the relief which will enable him to maintain his policy in being and why that policy should not be protected just as surely as the policies now provided for in the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 63.

Salt, E. W.
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
William, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sehuster, Sir G. E.
Sutcliffe, H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Selley, H. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Touche, G. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.



Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spens, W. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, C. G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jackson, W. F.
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Burks, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, A.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.

10.25 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from "before," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
the date on which a notice under Section twenty-three of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, is served on the policy holder.
This Amendment is so reasonable that I am sure that something will actually be done about it, although not quite in the form in which I have drafted it. It means therefore that I can deal with the matter very briefly. Under the Bill as it now stands a man who takes out a policy in August, 1937, and pays two years and then war comes and puts him in a position where he cannot pay in 1939, is protected, but if a man takes out a policy in August, 1938, and then pays for two years and war starts but does not put him into a position in which he cannot pay until 1940, then he is unprotected. That seems to be a rather anomalous situation. Unless one was going to argue that in August, 1937, the skies were still blue and he might take out an insurance policy legitimately, hoping to live to a ripe old age; whereas in August, 1938, it might be argued that it was obvious and everyone except the readers of the "Times" and other wishful thinkers expected that war might start, and anyone taking out a policy then must be

doing it with his eyes wide open—unless this argument was going to be used, I can see no reason for resisting my Amendment.
Since putting down this Amendment, I notice that it would have an incidental consequence if this war were to be prolonged beyond two years. As the war goes on and as the date on which notice is served gets gradually later, so the starting line, so to speak, which commences on September, 1937, will gradually rise and will eventually reach September, 1939. The Attorney-General has indicated to me that he can see a way of redrafting the Amendment so as to avoid the difficulty. If that is so, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

10.28 p.m.

The Attorney-General: It seems to me, and I hope that it will seem to the Committee also, that there is a good point in this Amendment. In the case of a man who took out a policy six months, a year, or 18 months ago and keeps it up for two years, and then, owing to war circumstances, is unable to continue, it seems, in my view, that he should be entitled to the protection of the Bill. I do not think it would be right, and I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) agrees, and I hope the Committee also will agree,


that that protection should be given after the war started to protect people who have pledged themselves to a contract and then the unforeseen circumstances of war descend, upon them. I do not think that this form would be right or that its place in the Bill is right. I think Clause 2 would be more correct. If the hon. Baronet will be satisfied with my assurances and will withdraw the Amendment, I will look at the question and see whether provision on these lines can be made in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 (Protection from forfeiture in cases of default due to war.)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "application," to insert
(a specimen form of which shall be included with the notice).
This is a purely administrative point. Where the policy holder has declared to the insurance company that he is suffering as a consequence of the war, the company can decide whether the policy shall be protected by this Bill. We want the insurance company to send with the notice dispatched to the policy holder a proper form upon which the policy holder can make his application. A large number of people are not conversant with the method to be adopted even when they know their legal rights. I am not sure that any Member will have read all that is contained in his insurance policies. I have heard people say that there are all manner of tricks in insurance policies and that they expected to get certain benefits from them, but when the happening occurs they find they have not read the policy and are not able to get benefit. It is amazing how many "acts of God" are included in an insurance policy.

10.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The Committee will have seen that the notice which has to be sent out is to be in a prescribed form. I give the Committee an assurance that it is intended that in that form it shall be made clear what particulars are required by the insurance company if it is desired to make an application. That is not what the hon. Gentleman wants.

He wants a form with a lot of questions and little spaces opposite them. My experience of these forms is that there is too much space opposite one question and not enough opposite another. We are anxious that the policy holder should understand what is wanted. We think it will meet the point if the form of notice says what particulars are wanted; the man can then write a letter stating what he has to say about the various particulars asked for.

10.34 p.m.

Major Milner: I hope the Committee will not accept the proposal. The Bill already says that the notice has to contain
a statement in the prescribed form that an application may be made within 28 days and at a place specified in the notice to the industrial assurance company or collecting society, as the case may be, for protection from forfeiture on the ground that the default is due to circumstances arising directly or indirectly out of the war.
All that the Attorney-General is promising is the same thing. He is going to put in the statement or notice which the company sends to the assured an indication—

The Attorney-General: Let us be clear about this. It is intended that the prescribed form should clearly indicate the class of particulars which the man has to give. The Amendment asks that there should be a form of application. A form of application may contain little or nothing. In my view the man should be told the sort of information which he has to give. It will not be actually what one would call a "form of application," but I think the object of the Amendment will be better served by our procedure.

Major Milner: I am obliged to the learned Attorney-General, but am I not right in assuming that his procedure will involve the assured in writing a letter? We all know the difficulty which many men and women, especially such as would take out small industrial policies, would have in expressing themselves clearly and with detail in a letter. What the mover of the Amendment desires is to have a tear-off strip, if you like, attached to the letter with questions which the assured person has nothing to do but to answer, and then to put it in an envelope—which might be enclosed with the letter sent to him—and post to the company. As against asking the assured person to write a letter this is a mere matter of printing


a form, either a loose form or one attached to the letter. Surely that would give less trouble. The Attorney-General's proposal will mean a lot of work for somebody. I have some knowledge of insurance agents and of the difficulties under which they are working, especially at the present time. If a letter has to be written many assured people will ask the agent to help to write it, whereas if there were a number of questions on a form to be answered the assured could do it himself, or, if he did need help, it would be a comparatively simple matter for the agent to help him. There is also the difficulty that this may involve the agent in a conflict with his company. After all he is the agent of the company, and it is his duty to look after their interests, though reputable agents do try to help their assured. A form of questions to be answered would be much the simpler and more satisfactory method, and I hope the Attorney-General will either accept the Amendment or agree to consider the point again.

Mr. Spens: The answer to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) is that what the letter has to explain are the circumstances arising directly or indirectly out of the war which have caused the difficulty. With great respect I defy him to draft a simple form of question-and-answer which will apply to every case and will enable an individual to fill up the form showing the indirect circumstances which he feels justify him in making the application.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: I hope very much that the Attorney-General, if he cannot accept these words, will give an assurance that he will consider the possibility of inserting in another place words which will give effect to the purpose of the Amendment. Anyone who has had experience of the work of the "poor man's lawyer"in a crowded industrial city will know how difficult simple people find it to write a letter, and how very much easier it is for them to fill in the answers to a number of questions on a form. Many poor people, and others, cannot frame a letter for themselves. Unless they get the guidance which a form might give, there is a danger of some people not being able to make their applications in legal form. I hope that the Attorney-General

will meet the spirit, if he is not able to meet the letter, of this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "made," to insert "in writing."
The application must be in writing, whether on a form or in a letter.

Amendment agreed to.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I beg to move—

The Attorney-General: On a point of Order. It is obvious that this Amendment seeks to do what we have sought to do by the proposed new Clause which is on the Paper. Therefore, I wondered whether we might discuss them at the same time.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): That is not a point of Order. The matter is now in the hands of the hon. Gentleman who is moving his Amendment. We cannot discuss both the New Clause and the Amendment.

Mr. Jagger: Further to that point of Order. If I move my Amendment and we get the answer of the Attorney-General, it might make for greater progress.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "twenty-eight days," and to insert "three months."
It is obvious what we are asking. A young man who is assured may have gone on a journey or taken to himself a wife, and we suggest that the period in the Bill is not sufficient, and that neither the company nor anyone else will suffer to an unreasonable extent.

10.43 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I made an improper application, but I cannot reply on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment without a passing reference to the alternative way in which we think the problem which the hon. Gentleman has put might be met. I agree with what he said that in many cases there are reasonable grounds for suggesting that 28 days would be insufficient. We thought it better to keep the 28 days in, as the prima facieperiod and by allowing time for appeal up to six months. If the hon. Gentleman feels that this is satisfactory, perhaps he will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Jagger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after "policy," to insert:
or serve on the applicant a further notice.
I do not move the first of this batch of Amendments, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "shall," to "protected," in line 28, and to insert "serve on the applicant a further notice to the effect that the policy is."I move the second of them, and a great many others which are consequential upon it. The reason is that, as the Bill stands, it provides that the protection is endorsed on the document. There are many cases in which policies have been mislaid or lost or cannot immediately be got at. Therefore it is desirable to provide for a record, in cases where there cannot immediately be an endorsement. This, and a consequential Amendment, provide that a notice can be served setting out the policies which are protected.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, after "policy," insert" or serve on the applicant a further notice."—[The Attorney-General.]

10.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add:
and any term of the policy providing that, on a default in the payment of premiums, the policy shall be converted into a free paid-up policy for a reduced amount or be surrendered for a cash payment, shall not apply as respects the said default or any subsequent default.
It was brought to my notice after the Debate the other day that there were certain cases in which the policy itself had a condition that, if there was default in paying the premiums, the policy should automatically become a paid-up policy. The purpose of these words is to prevent that taking effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I desire to point out one matter which does not seem to me to be satisfactory. While I fully appreciate

the reason why an insurance company may serve on the owner or any other person on his behalf the requisite notices, it appears to me to be dangerous that the final notice should be served on the applicant. What may happen in these cases is this. The owner may have gone off to the war. The first notice will arrive addressed to the owner at his house. Some member of the family will open it, and make an application on behalf of the owner. The insurance company or collecting society will investigate it, and if they come to an unfavourable conclusion they will send a notice to the applicant. As the time for appealing to the Commissioner passes by, and the applicant does nothing, the owner who is abroad and who knows nothing about it may lose all chances of appealing.
As the new Clause on the Paper deals with a somewhat similar point, I would suggest to the learned Attorney-General that he should consider at a later date whether a similar Amendment might not be made, so that if the owner finds an appeal has not been made for some good reason he should have further time in which to make the appeal. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is a possibility that owing to the negligence or ignorance or of some default on the part of somebody other than the owner, the owner may find himself unprotected.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Reduction of sum assured and (in the case of certain endowment policies) postponement of maturity, where premiums remain unpaid.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 4, leave out "accordingly," and insert:

"to that effect or shall serve a notice to that effect on the owner of the policy."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out "accordingly" and to insert:
to that effect, or shall serve a notice to that effect on the owner of the policy.
This Amendment, and the two that follow, are moved because we realise that the problems dealt with by this Subsection might arise during the period of protection as well as afterwards. It merely widens the Clause to enable that to be done.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In line 27, after "Where," insert "in relation to."
In line 28, leave out from "Act," to the third "the," in line 29, and insert
the amount of a free paid-up policy or of a surrender value is required to be ascertained.''
In line 30, after "the," insert
policy, or of any guarantee given in relation thereto, or of the."—[Attorney-General.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Determination of protection.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.51 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I should be very much obliged if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take into consideration the question of making some provision in the Bill for notice of determination to be sent in those cases where the protection has been given voluntarily by the companies, direct from the companies to the policy holders, with the proviso, of course, that wherever such a notice is sent direct, there should be a notification that if people do not accept the notice, they shall have the right of appeal to the Industrial Assurance Commissioner. If the Attorney-General will accept that, and arrange for the Amendment to be made in another place, I think he will be doing a good service.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have had my attention drawn to this, and I think there is something in it. I will see what can be done.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Cancellation of forfeiture notices and re-instatement of notices forfeited before passing of the Act.)

10.52 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "Act," to insert:
the company or society with which the policy was effected shall serve on the holder of the forfeited policy within twenty-eight days of the passing of this Act a statement in the prescribed form similar to that required by Subsection (1) of Section two of this Act, and.
I should like to get a reply to the point as to whether, in a case where there has been a forfeiture already, the individual

should not have the same right as in a case where there is a cancellation in future. Everybody is supposed to know the law, but this Bill, in regard to cancellation in the future, actually makes provision for a man not knowing the law, and insists that he shall be told what the law is. I have no information on the matter, but I should imagine that during the last six months a very large number of policies have been cancelled on account of non-payment of premiums, that non-payment having been brought about by changes in income due to war circumstances. I cannot imagine that this Bill is going to hit the headlines in the popular Press in the morning, and I cannot envisage how the rights of these people whose policies have been forfeited in the last six months are going to be brought to their notice. Unless there is an obvious answer to this, I should think that it would not constitute an intolerable burden on insurance companies to provide that they should look through their records of the last six months and see what policies have been cancelled, and send the policy-holders notice—which they can do at the cost of a halfpenny stamp—that if the reason for cancellation was alteration of income owing to war circumstances, they have this right.

The Attorney-General: I very much hope that the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment. It would impose a very considerable burden, and there might be difficulties in making sure that everybody would get notice. The effect of those words would be that it would be a defence if the notice was not sent. We are alive to the great importance of people knowing their rights, and we propose to do what we can to make certain that the rights of people are generally known.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:
In page 5, line 25, after the first "it," insert "or serve on the owner of the policy a notice."
In page 6, line 16, after "policy," insert "or serve on the applicant a further notice."—[The Attorney-General.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Special provisions as to certain policies effected with registered friendly societies.)

Amendments made:

In page 6, line 31, after "made," insert "in writing."

In page 7, line 1, after "policy," insert "or serve on the applicant a further notice."

In line 2, leave out from "Act," to end of line 5.

In line 14, leave out from "granted," to end of line 17, and insert:

"make an order requiring the society to endorse the policy, or serve on the applicant a further notice to the effect that it is a policy protected under this Act."

In line 32, after "six," insert:

"and section (Power of Commissioner to grant protection after period for application has expired)."

In page 8, line 1, leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 7.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE II.—(Extent.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 11, at the end, add

"but except for the provisions of the last foregoing Section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Commissioner to grant protection after period for application has expired.)

Where in relation to any policy of assurance to which this Act applies the period has expired for making an application for protection under this Act the owner of the policy or any person on his behalf may, within six months after the expiration of the said period, appeal to the Commissioner, and if the Commissioner is satisfied that—
(a) there were good reasons for the failure to make the application within the said period and there has been no undue delay in making the appeal under this Section; and
(b) if an application had been made within the said period, it would have been granted;
he may make an order reinstating the policy and requiring the company or society to endorse the policy, or serve a notice on the appellant, to the effect that it is a policy protected under this Act, and thereupon the policy shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if an application for protection had been made within the said period and granted.—[The Atttorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.